Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| London Health Sciences Centre | OTHER |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
This is a single-center, non-randomized, non-blinded feasibility study to evaluate the performance, safety and tolerability of the Percutaneous Ultrasound Gastrostomy (PUG) procedure that utilizes a novel device in conjunction with widely available ultrasound technology. The procedure will be performed in up to 25 eligible subjects. Patients will be followed for 2 days following performance of PUG to assess for potential complications. If the patient remains hospitalized they will be assessed at date of discharge or Day 30 (whichever is earlier) for potential complications.
Gastrostomy feeding is an established means of delivering adequate nutrition to patients with an inability to meet their metabolic requirements due to inadequate oral intake. Additionally, the gastrostomy tube can be utilized for medication administration in patients unable to otherwise tolerate oral intake. Traditionally, placement of gastrostomy tubes has been performed endoscopically, radiologically or by either laparoscopic or open surgical techniques. More than 200,000 gastrostomy tubes are placed each year in the United States, and that number is expected to increase as the proportion of the population that is elderly grows (Roche et al 2003, Goldberg et al 2005, Lynch et al 2004).
Previous studies have failed to identify a clearly superior technique for placement of feeding tubes (Bravo 2016, Yuan 2016). Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) was first described by Gauderer et al. in 1980 in a case series of 12 children as an alternative to laparotomy in high-risk patients (Gauderer 1980). There is a high overall success rate of PEG placement at 95-100% (Itkin 2011). Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) has become the most common method for placement of a gastrostomy tube. This requires the use of specialized equipment and the availability of physicians specifically trained in this procedure. The number of procedures performed yearly to place feeding tubes is expected to rise as the population ages and as some treatments have resulted in some diseases become chronic states rather than invariably fatal conditions.
Challenges to performance of gastrostomy tube placement include the requirement for specialized equipment, specialized areas designated to have this procedure performed as well as the need for proceduralists who are specifically trained in this technique.
The CoapTech device was developed in an effort to reduce the complicated requirements associated with other techniques of gastrostomy placement so that when clinically indicated the procedure can be performed in a safe and timely manner by a wide range of clinicians with various training backgrounds.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventional | Experimental | This arm utilizes the investigational device, as specified in protocol. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percutaneous Ultrasound Gastrostomy | Device | A balloon catheter is inserted into the stomach and used to appose tissue between anterior stomach and skin. Fluid fills the balloon, enabling ultrasound visualization. Then a guidewire is inserted, and pulled out through the mouth to create wire-to-wire (through and through) access. At that point, a gastrostomy tube is placed over it using over-the-wire (push) technique. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Number of Participants With Serious Device Related Adverse Events | the number of enrolled subjects who have a serious, adverse event during placement of a gastrostomy tube using the PUG procedure. Adverse events were defined by the Clavien-Dindo classification system of surgical complications. For the purpose of this study, minor adverse events are defined as Grade I-II and serious adverse events as Grade III-V. See references for relevant citation. | Discharge or 30 days |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Severity of Serious Device Related Adverse Events | the severity of any serious, device-related adverse event during placement of a gastrostomy tube using the PUG procedure (if applicable). Adverse events were defined by the Clavien-Dindo classification system of surgical complications. For the purpose of this study, minor adverse events are defined as Grade I-II and serious adverse events as Grade III-V. See references for relevant citation. |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victoria Hospital, London Health Sciences Centre | London | Ontario | N6A 5W9 | Canada |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 15273542 | Background | Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae. | |
| 34240242 | Derived | Accorsi F, Chung J, Mujoomdar A, Wiseman D, Kribs S, Cool DW. Percutaneous ultrasound gastrostomy (PUG): first prospective clinical trial. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2021 Nov;46(11):5377-5385. doi: 10.1007/s00261-021-03200-x. Epub 2021 Jul 9. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
No pre-assignment methods were employed in this protocol
Study recruitment began Oct 2018 and concluded Apr 2020. Patients referred to Interventional Radiology for gastrostomy tube placement were approached for consent at least 24hrs pre-procedure in clinic or in hospital. When patients lacked capacity to consent, a surrogate decision maker was approached or reached remotely for telephone consent.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | Prospective PUG Cohort | Patients meeting all the inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria and provided study consent who received the Percutaneous Ultrasound Gastrostomy (PUG) procedure |
| FG001 | Matched Retrospective RIG Cohort | Patients who previously received the standard of care Radiologic Inserted Gastrostomy (RIG) procedure. A waiver of consent was provided by the Research Ethics Board for this study arm. |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study |
|
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | Interventional | This arm utilizes the investigational device, as specified in protocol. Percutaneous Ultrasound Gastrostomy: A balloon catheter is inserted into the stomach and used to appose tissue between anterior stomach and skin. Fluid fills the balloon, enabling ultrasound visualization. Then a guidewire is inserted, and pulled out through the mouth to create wire-to-wire (through and through) access. At that point, a gastrostomy tube is placed over it using over-the-wire (push) technique. |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Categorical | Count of Participants |
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Number of Participants With Serious Device Related Adverse Events | the number of enrolled subjects who have a serious, adverse event during placement of a gastrostomy tube using the PUG procedure. Adverse events were defined by the Clavien-Dindo classification system of surgical complications. For the purpose of this study, minor adverse events are defined as Grade I-II and serious adverse events as Grade III-V. See references for relevant citation. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Discharge or 30 days |
|
At least 48hrs post-procedure until discharge from hospital or 30 days post-procedure (whichever came sooner)
All cause adverse events observed in study participants were defined by the Clavien-Dindo classification system of surgical complications. For the purpose of this study, minor adverse events are defined as Grade I-II and major adverse events as Grade III-V.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | Prospective PUG Cohort | Patients meeting all the inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria and provided study consent who received the Percutaneous Ultrasound Gastrostomy (PUG) procedure |
| Term | Organ System | Source Vocabulary | Assessment Type | Notes | Statistical Information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aspiration Pneumonia | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | Systematic Assessment |
| Term | Organ System | Source Vocabulary | Assessment Type | Notes | Statistical Information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mild Aspiration | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | Systematic Assessment |
Not provided
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dr. Derek Cool | London Health Sciences Centre | 519-685-8500 | 54965 | derek.cool@lhsc.on.ca |
Not provided
| Type | Includes Protocol | Includes SAP | Includes ICF | Document Label | Document Date | Document Uploaded Date | Document File Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prot | Yes | No | No | Study Protocol | Feb 13, 2019 | Aug 28, 2020 | Prot_000.pdf |
| SAP | No | Yes | No | Statistical Analysis Plan | Feb 13, 2019 | Nov 3, 2020 | SAP_001.pdf |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D005774 | Gastrostomy |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D013505 | Digestive System Surgical Procedures |
| D013514 | Surgical Procedures, Operative |
| D010030 | Ostomy |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
|
|
| Discharge or 30 days |
| Number of Participants With Technically Successful Gastrostomy Tube Placement | the number of enrolled subjects who have successful placement of a gastrostomy tube | Discharge or 30 days |
| Length of Angiographic Suite Usage | Length of angiographic suite usage in minutes | Discharge or 30 days |
| BG001 | Matched Retrospective RIG Cohort | Patients who previously received the standard of care Radiologic Inserted Gastrostomy (RIG) procedure. A waiver of consent was provided by the Research Ethics Board for this study arm. |
| BG002 | Total | Total of all reporting groups |
| Participants |
|
| Age, Continuous | Mean | Standard Deviation | years |
|
| Sex: Female, Male | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Race (NIH/OMB) | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
Patients who previously received the standard of care Radiologic Inserted Gastrostomy (RIG) procedure. A waiver of consent was provided by the Research Ethics Board for this study arm. |
|
|
| Secondary | Severity of Serious Device Related Adverse Events | the severity of any serious, device-related adverse event during placement of a gastrostomy tube using the PUG procedure (if applicable). Adverse events were defined by the Clavien-Dindo classification system of surgical complications. For the purpose of this study, minor adverse events are defined as Grade I-II and serious adverse events as Grade III-V. See references for relevant citation. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Discharge or 30 days |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Number of Participants With Technically Successful Gastrostomy Tube Placement | the number of enrolled subjects who have successful placement of a gastrostomy tube | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Discharge or 30 days |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Length of Angiographic Suite Usage | Length of angiographic suite usage in minutes | 22 of the participants in the Prospective PUG Cohort and 25 participants in the Matched Retrospective RIG Cohort were analyzed in this group as each received gastrostomy procedure within the Angiosuite. 3 participants in the Prospective PUG Cohort were excluded in this analysis as procedures were performed at the bedside on the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | minutes | Discharge or 30 days |
|
|
|
| 1 |
| 25 |
| 2 |
| 25 |
| 3 |
| 25 |
| EG001 | Matched Retrospective RIG Cohort | Patients who previously received the standard of care Radiologic Inserted Gastrostomy (RIG) procedure. A waiver of consent was provided by the Research Ethics Board for this study arm. | 0 | 25 | 5 | 25 | 2 | 25 |
| Gastrostomy Tube Failure | Gastrointestinal disorders | Systematic Assessment | Gastrostomy tube failure requiring non-invasive or surgical intervention to replace |
|
| Abdominal Wall Abscess | Gastrointestinal disorders | Systematic Assessment |
|
| Local Stomal Site Infection | Infections and infestations | Systematic Assessment | Infection seeded at the site of the gastrostomy tube tract |
|
Not provided
Not provided
| Grade IV: Life-threatening complications |
|
| Grade V: Death of patient |
|