Effectiveness of Semi-rigid Savary Dilators vs. Balloon Dilators During Esophageal Dilation in the Treatment of Esophageal Dysmotility
试验速览
- 阶段
- 不适用
- 状态
- 终止
- 发起方
- 入组人数
- 10
- 试验地点
- 2
- 主要终点
- Therapeutic Efficacy as Measured by Change in Dysphagia Scale Score
研究概览
简要总结
The purpose of the study is to prospectively evaluate the most effective treatment of esophageal dysmotility that alleviates symptoms of dysphagia and improves quality of life.
Current practice uses either semi-rigid Savary dilators or balloon dilators for esophageal dilation to treat dysphagia due to esophageal dysmotility. The study aims to show which treatment method is more effective in alleviating symptoms, since there are no other treatments available. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the clinical benefits of each treatment.
详细描述
Both the Savary and balloon dilators are used as routine procedure at University of Massachusetts (UMass) Medical School's academic medical center UMass Memorial Health Care (UMMHC). Gastroenterologists are required as part of their training to be familiar with both types of procedures. This study aims to definitively determine which treatment method is more effective in alleviating the symptoms of esophageal dysmotility.
The primary clinical endpoint is to assess the therapeutic efficacy of different types of dilators in an esophageal dilation procedure in patients with esophageal dysmotility. This will be evaluated through the use of the dysphagia scale (Knyrim et al, 1993). The secondary aims are to assess time to relapse, diet improvement, as well as change in quality of life. Investigators will determine time to relapse by time between the dilation procedures. Participants are instructed to contact the GI office to schedule another dilation if they feel as though the therapeutic effect of the procedure has subsided and they are in need of additional relief. Diet will be assessed using the diet score (Cox et al, 1998) and quality of life will be assessed using the Short Form (SF) SF-12 Health Survey.
If patients fail the first procedure, they can be offered the alternative procedure at a later date. Both the patient and physician must agree that the treatment has not worked, and then the patient will be given the opportunity to cross over to the other procedure, still blinded to the device that will be used. Investigators will conduct an interim evaluation to assess the progress of the study and degree of crossover. This will ensure that all subjects are given the opportunity to have both devices used in the event that one is significantly superior to the other.
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
- 否
入选标准
- •> 18 years old
- •Dysphagia to liquids and/or solids
- •Diagnosis of esophageal dysmotility
- •Normal endoscopic exam
排除标准
- •Diagnosis of achalasia
- •Defined strictures or webs
- •Vulnerable populations:
- •Adults unable to consent (Individuals who are not yet adults (infants, children, teenagers), Pregnant women, Prisoners)
结局指标
主要结局
Therapeutic Efficacy as Measured by Change in Dysphagia Scale Score
时间窗: Baseline to 6 months post-procedure
Therapeutic efficacy of different types of dilators in an esophageal dilation procedure in patients with esophageal dysmotility. This will be evaluated through the use of the dysphagia scale (Knyrim 1993). Minimum score is 0. Maximum score is 4. Higher scores indicate a worse outcome. The data presented represent a change from baseline to 6 months calculated as the value at 6 months minus the value at baseline.
次要结局
- Participants With Relapse(Baseline to 6 months)
- Time to Relapse(Initial intervention to second dilation)
- Diet Dysphagia Score Change(baseline to 6 months post procedure)
研究者
David Cave
Professor
University of Massachusetts, Worcester
