跳至主要内容
临床试验/NCT06620328
NCT06620328招募中不适用

Safety and Efficacy of Mechanical Versus Electrocautery Dilator for EUS-guided Biliary Drainage: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

National Taiwan University Hospital1 个研究点 分布在 1 个国家目标入组 64 人开始时间: 2025年7月3日最近更新:
适应症
干预措施

试验速览

阶段
不适用
状态
招募中
入组人数
64
试验地点
1
主要终点
Bleeding

研究概览

简要总结

The purpose of this study is to investigate the likelihood of post-dilation bleeding using mechanical or electrocautery dilation. We hypothesized that the risk of bleeding is lower in the mechanical group.

详细描述

  1. Study background In recent years, with the advancement of endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has been increasingly applied in cases of failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP). According to the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines1, in patients with malignant obstruction of the distal bile duct, if ERCP drainage fails, EUS-guided biliary drainage is superior to percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). In patients with malignant obstruction of the proximal bile duct combined with left-sided bile duct dilatation, EUS-guided biliary drainage can also be considered.

The direct transmural technique is the most common method for EUS-guided biliary drainage.2,3 Under endoscopic ultrasound guidance, the dilated bile duct is observed from the stomach or duodenum. A fine needle is then used for duct puncture, and a guidewire is advanced into the duct followed by tract dilation to create an artificial fistula. Finally, a plastic or metal stent is placed to achieve drainage. Common complications of EUS-guided drainage procedures include bleeding, intestinal perforation, bile leakage, and stent migration, with tract dilation being the most common step leading to complications.4,5 The two main methods of tract dilation are electrocautery dilation and mechanical dilation. Currently, there are only retrospective studies comparing the success rates, complications, and short- and long-term outcomes between these two methods.6 However, no any randomized controlled trial has investigated the safety and efficacy of the two traction dilation method on EUS-BD. Therefore, this study will attempt to clarify the differences in bleeding, other complications, success rates of dilation, and drainage success rates between these two dilation methods through randomized allocation. 2. Study Design Multi-center randomized clinical trial (included National Taiwan University Hospital Hsin-Chu branch, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, Shin Kong Wu Ho Su Memorial Hospital, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, China Medical University Hospital, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, and Taitung Mackay Memorial Hospital) will enroll 64 patients and the study period is 12 months.

Randomization will be done by opening sealed opaque envelopes containing computer generated random sequences in blocks of 4.

Patients will be randomly assigned to electrocautery dilation arm vs mechanical dilation arm on 1:1 basis. 3. Subjects Consecutive patients aged more than 18 years old indicated for EUS-guided biliary drainage were included.

Inclusion criteria : (1) Failed ERCP (2) The papilla is inaccessible owing to a surgically altered anatomy or gastric outlet obstruction (3) Contraindications for PTCD such as ascites and possibility of self-tube removal Exclusion criteria : (1) Patients younger than 18 years old (2) Cancer infiltration of the gastric/duodenal wall within the planned puncture route (3) Patients with uncorrectable coagulopathy (4) Patients with unmanageable ascites (5) Patients with serious comorbidities that prohibited endoscopic management (6) Patients with pregnancy (7) Patients who cannot or refuse to provide informed consent 4. Study intervention Skilled endosonographers performed EUS-BD with patients under conscious sedation by intravenous medication. All patients were given intravenous antibiotics prophylactically. A therapeutic curved linear array echoendoscope is positioned in the stomach with carbon dioxide insufflation. Standard 19G fine needles are used to puncture the dilated left intrahepatic bile duct or commo bile duct. Bile juice aspiration with 20ml syringe was performed to confirm intraductal puncture. After contrast medium injection, an insulated guidewire (0.025 inch VisiGlide2; Olympus Medical Systems, Tokyo, Japan) is advanced antegradely.

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
Single (Participant)

入排标准

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

入选标准

  • Failed ERCP
  • The papilla is inaccessible owing to a surgically altered anatomy or gastric outlet obstruction
  • Contraindications for PTCD such as ascites and possibility of self-tube removal

排除标准

  • Patients younger than 18 years old
  • Cancer infiltration of the gastric/duodenal wall within the planned puncture route
  • Patients with uncorrectable coagulopathy
  • Patients with unmanageable ascites
  • Patients with serious comorbidities that prohibited endoscopic management
  • Patients with pregnancy
  • Patients who cannot or refuse to provide informed consent

研究组 & 干预措施

Mechanical dilator

Experimental

Dilation of the needle tract is initially performed with an ultra-tapered mechanical dilator (7Fr ES Dilator; Zeon Medical Co., Tokyo, Japan).

干预措施: endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage (Procedure)

Electrocautery dilator

Active Comparator

Dilation of the needle tract is initially performed with a diathermic sheath (6Fr Cyst-Gastro set; Endoflex, Voerde, Germany).

干预措施: endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage (Procedure)

结局指标

主要结局

Bleeding

时间窗: From randomization to four weeks after the procedure

hematemesis and/or melena or hemoglobin drop over 2g/dL, needed blood transfusion, endoscopic hemostasis, radiological intervention or surgery

次要结局

  • Tract dilation success(From randomization to successful tract dilation using the first device (success), to using other dilation devices (fail) or to procedure termination (fail))
  • Final procedure success(at the end of the procedure)
  • Procedural duration(between puncture of the intrahepatic duct and completion of deployment of stent)
  • Clinical success(From enrollment to 30 days after procedure)
  • Time to Recurrent biliary obstruction(From the day of technically successful biliary drainage to the day of recurrent obstruction or to study completion an average of 1 year, whichever comes first)
  • Overall survival(From date of randomization until the date of death from any cause or study completion, whichever came first, assessed up to 12 months)
  • Length of hospital stay after procedure(From date of randomization until the date of discharge or date of death from any cause, whichever came first, assessed up to 12 months)
  • Adverse events other than bleeding(From the day of randomization to the date of death or through study completion, an average of 1 year)

研究者

申办方类型
Other
责任方
Sponsor

研究点 (1)

Loading locations...

相似试验

Safety and Efficacy of Mechanical Versus... | 临床试验