Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The goal of this clinical trial is to assess the overall usability of the Philips
AirWaze investigational device in patients indicated for CBCT-guided navigation bronchoscopy procedure. The main questions it aims to answer are to assess the:
Participants will undergo bronchoscopy with the new navigation device and additional confirmation scans. Follow-up visit at 7days will be performed.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| AirWaze | Experimental | AirWaze - easy and advanced tools for CBCT guided lung interventions |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AirWaze | Device | AirWaze - easy and advanced tools for CBCT guided lung interventions |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| System Usability Scale (SUS) | System Usability Scale (SUS) of AirWaze investigational device. An average SUS of greater than 70 will indicate a good usability design of the AirWaze Software solution. The SUS will be measured per operator every 4 procedures. The questionnaire consists of a 10-item questionnaire with five response options for respondents; from Strongly agree to Strongly disagree. Minimum total score is 0 and maximum, 100. | after procedure, up to 2 hours |
| Number of Participants With Accurate Tool-in-lesion Confirmation Scan (Ultra-low Dose CBCT Scan) Compared to the Conventional Tool-in-lesion Confirmation Scan (CBCT Scan) | Accuracy of the tool-in-lesion confirmation scan (ultra-low dose CBCT scan) is defined as the number of participants where ultra-low dose CBCT scans were adequate to define tool-in-lesion compared to conventional CBCT scans (gold-standard). The accuracy is defined as the sum of the number of tool-in-lesion scans in both the ultra-low dose CBCT and conventional CBCT scans (i.e. true positives), and the number of no tool-in-lesion confirmation in both the ultra-low dose CBCT and conventional CBCT scans (i.e. true negatives), divided by the total number of ultra-low dose CBCT and conventional CBCT scan pairs. Image based tool-in-lesion confirmation accuracy of 90% will indicate that the ultra-low dose CBCT scan is postulated to be sufficient for navigation bronchoscopy. | after procedure, up to 1 hour |
Not provided
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Erik van der Heijden | Radboudumc Nijmegen, Netherlands | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Radboudumc | Nijmegen | Gelderland | Netherlands |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | AirWaze (Enrolled Population) | The Enrolled Population was defined as all subjects who signed informed consent during the study and planned for CBCT-guided navigation bronchoscopy supported by the AirWaze investigational device. |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study |
|
|
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | AirWaze (Per Protocol Population) | The Per Protocol Population was defined as all subjects in the Enrolled Population which underwent CBCT-guided navigation bronchoscopy supported by the AirWaze investigational device without major protocol deviations. |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | Mean |
| 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 | System Usability Scale (SUS) | System Usability Scale (SUS) of AirWaze investigational device. An average SUS of greater than 70 will indicate a good usability design of the AirWaze Software solution. The SUS will be measured per operator every 4 procedures. The questionnaire consists of a 10-item questionnaire with five response options for respondents; from Strongly agree to Strongly disagree. Minimum total score is 0 and maximum, 100. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | units on a scale | after procedure, up to 2 hours |
|
from enrollment until end of follow-up, up to 1 week
The following adverse events do not need to be reported if occurred within the 48h timeframe:
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 | AirWaze (Enrolled Population) | The Enrolled Population was defined as all subjects who signed informed consent during the study and planned for CBCT-guided navigation bronchoscopy supported by the AirWaze investigational device. |
| Term | Organ System | Source Vocabulary | Assessment Type | Notes | Statistical Information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chest pain | Cardiac disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| Term | Organ System | Source Vocabulary | Assessment Type | Notes | Statistical Information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Back pain | Nervous system disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
Not provided
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pim van Lochem | Philips Medical Systems Nederland B.V. | +31 6 18 19 87 71 | pim.vanlochem@philips.com |
Not provided
| Type | Includes Protocol | Includes SAP | Includes ICF | Document Label | Document Date | Document Uploaded Date | Document File Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prot_SAP | Yes | Yes | No | Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan | Jun 19, 2024 | Feb 10, 2026 | Prot_SAP_000.pdf |
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D008171 | Lung Diseases |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D012140 | Respiratory Tract Diseases |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| years |
|
| Sex: Female, Male | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Race and Ethnicity Not Collected | Race and Ethnicity were not collected from any participant. | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Height | Mean | Standard Deviation | cm |
|
| Weight | Mean | Standard Deviation | kg |
|
| BMI | Mean | Standard Deviation | kilograms per square meters |
|
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
|
| Primary | Number of Participants With Accurate Tool-in-lesion Confirmation Scan (Ultra-low Dose CBCT Scan) Compared to the Conventional Tool-in-lesion Confirmation Scan (CBCT Scan) | Accuracy of the tool-in-lesion confirmation scan (ultra-low dose CBCT scan) is defined as the number of participants where ultra-low dose CBCT scans were adequate to define tool-in-lesion compared to conventional CBCT scans (gold-standard). The accuracy is defined as the sum of the number of tool-in-lesion scans in both the ultra-low dose CBCT and conventional CBCT scans (i.e. true positives), and the number of no tool-in-lesion confirmation in both the ultra-low dose CBCT and conventional CBCT scans (i.e. true negatives), divided by the total number of ultra-low dose CBCT and conventional CBCT scan pairs. Image based tool-in-lesion confirmation accuracy of 90% will indicate that the ultra-low dose CBCT scan is postulated to be sufficient for navigation bronchoscopy. | All participants with an ultra-low dose CBCT scan and a conventional CBCT scan to confirm tool-in-lesion with the same catheter and tool position, are included in this analysis. For 9 of the 34 participants, no ultra-low dose CBCT scan and/ or conventional CBCT scan was performed to confirm tool-in-lesion and therefore no tool-in-lesion accuracy was determined. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | after procedure, up to 1 hour |
|
|
|
| 0 |
| 37 |
| 2 |
| 37 |
| 4 |
| 37 |
| Dyspnea | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
|
| Bleeding | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | Non-systematic Assessment |
|
| Fever | Infections and infestations | Non-systematic Assessment |
|
| Pneumonia | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
|
Not provided
Not provided