Research

Where EP care goes,
research follows.

ACCESS Research brings clinical research infrastructure to cardiac EP ambulatory surgery centers—connecting investigators, patients, and industry through a scalable, physician-led research network.

From registry to clinical trial. From individual centers to a national research network.

Sites: start with the registry Sponsors: bring a protocol

Why the fit is structural

ASCs already have the one thing research needs most.

This is not a favour centers are being asked to do for the field. The economics point in the same direction as the science.

Capacity headroom

ASCs run materially higher throughput per day than hospital labs. As centers proliferate, the operating challenge becomes filling procedure days — not performing the cases.

Fixed costs run regardless

Staff, facility, and equipment cost the same whether the room runs or sits idle. Unfilled block time is margin lost outright.

Staff hours and retention

Experienced EP staff need predictable hours. A center that cannot offer them loses the team it spent years assembling.

Revenue that is not a payer

Research pays for work the center is already equipped to perform, on a timeline that does not wait on a claim.

Research does not compete with clinical volume for capacity. It monetizes capacity that already exists, against fixed cost already committed — and it pays the staff you are trying to keep.

What participation looks like

The honest version — for both
sides of the table.

For sites

What your center brings

—A qualified principal investigator on staff
—Accreditation, transfer agreement, and emergency protocols in force
—Consecutive case submission — not selected cases
—Registry participation as the data backbone
—Governing body sign-off on research participation

Consecutive means every eligible case — not the cases chosen after the outcome is known. It is the discipline that makes a result defensible to payers and referrers, and it is not optional where a protocol requires it.

What ACCESS provides

+Master contract and budget, negotiated once network-wide
+Central IRB submission and approval
+Coordinator capacity and CTMS access
+Regulatory binder, monitoring, and query resolution
+Sponsor interface and study-level reporting

The registry is the on-ramp. If your center already submits cases, the first column is largely done — feasibility can be answered from your own data.

For sponsors

One platform, not twenty sites

Contract, budget, and central IRB negotiated once for the network — a single research counterparty instead of separate negotiations with every center.

Feasibility from real data

Questions answered against structured registry cases from the network, not a survey circulated to sites.

Data built to withstand scrutiny

Consecutive enrollment, prospectively defined endpoints, and common definitions across every participating site.

Transparent allocation

Studies distributed on published criteria: capability and approved scope, case mix, eligible volume, PI qualification, prior data performance, and current load.

Compensation kept clean

Investigator payments reflect fair-market value for work performed, never enrollment volume — and allocation decisions stay separate from compensation.

Where this stands

What is running, and what is still being built.

Operational today

Registry-based feasibility — answering whether the patients and procedures exist, from structured case data the network already collects.

In build

Central contracting, central IRB, coordinator capacity, CTMS, and monitoring.

This describes the operating model being assembled — not a claim that every component is already live.

Start where the data already is.

For a center, the registry is the practical first step — it builds the structured case history that makes everything downstream possible. For a sponsor, it is where a feasibility question gets a real answer.