跳至主要内容
临床试验/NCT05128955
NCT05128955已完成不适用

Embolization of the Splenic Artery After Trauma (ELSA-2)

Andrew J. Gunn6 个研究点 分布在 1 个国家目标入组 180 人开始时间: 2022年5月10日最近更新:
适应症
干预措施

试验速览

阶段
不适用
状态
已完成
发起方
入组人数
180
试验地点
6
主要终点
Primary Technical Success

研究概览

简要总结

Our aim is to conduct a multi-center, Bayesian, randomized clinical trial to evaluate the primary technical success of coils and vascular plugs for proximal splenic artery embolization in the setting of high-grade splenic trauma. The investigator has previously demonstrated the feasibility of such a study in a single center pilot trial.

详细描述

Splenic preservation rates are improved for participants with high-grade splenic injuries (defined as Grade III-V injuries by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) guidelines) when non-operative management is supplemented by image-guided, trans-catheter splenic artery embolization (SAE). SAE is currently the standard of care for hemodynamically stable participants with high-grade splenic injuries. In proximal SAE (pSAE), the mid-splenic artery is embolized between the origins of the dorsal pancreatic artery and pancreatica magna artery with either endovascular plugs (VPs) or endovascular coils (EC). This reduces the intra-splenic arterial pressure which allows the parenchyma time to heal. Splenic perfusion is maintained via a collateral pathway consisting of flow from the splenic artery proximal to the site of embolization through the smaller dorsal pancreatic artery to the transverse pancreatic artery to the pancreatica magna artery which then delivers a slower, smaller amount of blood to the splenic artery distal to the site of embolization. Additionally, collateral supply from the short gastric and gastroepiploic arteries helps to protect the spleen from infarction and/or abscess formation.

pSAE is most often accomplished using either VPs or ECs as the embolic agent, both of which are FDA-approved and clinically-available. ECs have a long history of efficacy and safety for embolization and are thus familiar embolic agents to most endovascular specialists. Further, coils large enough to embolize the mid-splenic artery can be deployed through a standard micro-catheter, which means they can be used in even the most tortuous splenic arteries. However, multiple coils may need to be deployed in the same patient to achieve hemostasis in the mid-splenic artery that may increase their overall cost, iodinated contrast use, procedural time, and the radiation exposure to the participant and medical staff. Additionally, given the high-flow nature of the splenic artery, even an appropriately sized coil may migrate distally. A typical pSAE using coils will involve the deployment of one helical coil followed by multiple packing coils until hemostasis is achieved. VPs attempt to overcome the limitations of coils. For example, the deployment of a single VP can typically provide hemostasis in the mid-splenic artery which theoretically reduces procedural time, contrast load, and radiation exposure. Despite this, VPs are usually more expensive than coils on a per unit basis and are usually less familiar devices to endovascular specialists. Another drawback of VPs is that they cannot be deployed through a standard micro-catheter but rather require the advancement of a larger, stiffer 0.035 inch system into the mid-splenic artery. This may limit their use in very tortuous splenic arteries. Currently, the selection of embolic agent for pSAE is primarily based on operator experience and preference. The embolic efficacy, technical success, and cost of using coils compared to VPs has been evaluated in other diseases; yet, to the best of our knowledge, these embolic agents have never been compared for their use in pSAE, much less in a randomized, prospective fashion.

研究设计

研究类型
Interventional
分配方式
Randomized
干预模型
Parallel
主要目的
Treatment
盲法
None

入排标准

年龄范围
15 Years 至 —(Child, Adult, Older Adult)
性别
All
接受健康志愿者

入选标准

  • ≥15 years of age
  • Trauma resulting in grade III or higher splenic injury on contrast-enhanced CT
  • Splenic injury to be treated by non-operative management as decided by attending trauma surgeon and interventional radiologist
  • The attending interventional radiologist determines that the patient will undergo proximal splenic artery embolization with the specific method to be decided by randomization.

排除标准

  • Inability to obtain informed consent
  • Uncorrectable coagulopathy
  • Patient is immunocompromised
  • Breast-feeding
  • Non-English speakers

研究组 & 干预措施

Active Comparator: Splenic artery embolization with vascular embolic coils

Active Comparator

Device: Splenic artery embolization with vascular embolic coils

干预措施: Splenic artery embolization with vascular embolic coils or plugs (Device)

Active Comparator: Splenic artery embolization with vascular embolic plugs

Active Comparator

Active Comparator: Splenic artery embolization with vascular embolic plugs

干预措施: Splenic artery embolization with vascular embolic coils or plugs (Device)

结局指标

主要结局

Primary Technical Success

时间窗: 3 years

The ability to deploy the assigned embolic device in the mid-splenic artery with resultant occlusion of the artery within 15 minutes of deployment.

次要结局

  • Number of Participants Enrolled within 24 months(24 months)

研究者

发起方
Andrew J. Gunn
申办方类型
Other
责任方
Sponsor Investigator
主要研究者

Andrew J. Gunn

Associate Professor

University of Alabama at Birmingham

研究点 (6)

Loading locations...

相似试验