Fresh-Frozen Plasma Infusions to Reduce Risk of Bleeding Related to Invasive Procedures
NCT ID: NCT00233246
Last Updated: 2014-06-06
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
WITHDRAWN
PHASE3
INTERVENTIONAL
2006-03-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
1. Intrahepatic hematoma greater than 1 ml/kg of patient weight as seen on post-procedure ultrasound examination performed between 4 to 30 hours after the procedure.
2. Greater than 1.6g/dL hemoglobin decline measured within 4 to 30 hours post-procedure compared with the pre-procedure value, in the absence of another identified bleeding source to account for the hemoglobin drop.
3. Need for transfusion of packed red blood cells for procedure-related bleeding while in the study.
The secondary endpoints of this study will be: 1) The need to perform subsequent procedures (angiography, embolization, additional imaging study including computerized tomography (CT) scan, surgery) to diagnose or to arrest procedure-related bleeding OR the need for subsequent medical therapies (FFP, coagulation factor concentrates, anti-fibrinolytics) to treat procedure-related bleeding between time of procedure and the end of patient's time in the study. If necessary, the relationship of procedure or therapy to procedure-related bleeding will be assessed by an adjudication panel; 2) The predictive value of INR; 3) The effect of study treatment on change in INR; 4) The cost of preventing one bleed; 5) The predictors of bleeding other than INR; 6) The number of transfusion-associated adverse events encountered to prevent one bleed; and 7) The effect of treatment on bleeding grade.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Does Plasma Reduce Bleeding in Patients Undergoing Invasive Procedures
NCT02637427
Is Plasma Transfusion Beneficial Prior to Low-Risk Procedures in Hospitalized Patients With Blood Clotting Abnormalities?
NCT00953901
Disorders of the Acute Phase Response Following Trauma and Invasive Surgery
NCT03741023
Does Early Administration of Tranexamic Acid Reduce Blood Loss and Perioperative Transfusion Requirement
NCT03182751
Pre-Hospital Use of Plasma for Traumatic Hemorrhage
NCT02303964
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
It is important to determine whether or not prophylactic FFP is necessary for patients with mild to moderate elevation of the INR who require an invasive procedure. It is also important to establish whether routine pre-procedure coagulation tests are predictive of bleeding outcomes at the time of a significant invasive procedure. Although prophylactic FFP is often given to such patients before invasive procedures, there is little evidence to show that pre-procedure INR in this range is predictive of procedure-related bleeding or that prophylactic FFP reduces this risk.
DESIGN NARRATIVE:
After obtaining consent and verifying eligibility requirements, the study staff will randomize the patient to one of two treatment groups. One group will receive a prophylactic FFP infusion before the hepatobiliary procedure. The other group will not receive prophylactic FFP.
The dose of FFP will be approximately 10 ml/kg. The dose of FFP for each patient will be determined in one of two ways in accordance with local policies: 1) rounding to the nearest integer number of units (Method 1); or 2) using split units (Method 2). The method chosen may vary between patients (e.g., a physician might decide to dose adult patients by rounding to the nearest integer number of units and to dose pediatric patients using split units).
Method 1: The dose of FFP will be the number of units that comes closest to a dose of 10 ml/kg, determined as follows: nearest integer to (10 x weight in kg)/200. Decimals .5 and higher should be rounded up to the next integer. Decimals less than .5 should be rounded down (e.g., a 70 kg patient would receive 4 units, while a 69 kg patient would receive 3 units).
Method 2: The dose of FFP will be chosen in order to come as close as possible to a dose of 10 ml/kg, and can contain either full units, split units, or a combination thereof.
After the FFP infusion (if any) and within 2 hours prior to the hepatobiliary procedure, blood will be drawn for laboratory tests and for the repository. Although Study of Hemostasis and Invasive Procedures (SHIP) will not be a truly blinded study, the clinicians performing the hepatobiliary procedure and the radiology team performing the post-procedure ultrasound will not be told whether the participant received prophylactic FFP. They will also not know the results of the immediate pre-procedure Prethrombin Time (PT)/INR and Partial Thomboplastin Time (PTT) tests.
Participants in the study may not be treated with any other systemic hemostatic agents prior to the procedure. Local hemostatic treatments may be used during the procedure, according to standard practice. The invasive hepatobiliary procedure techniques, all other concomitant treatments and interventions, and all post-procedure treatments and interventions are at the discretion of the treating physicians. Participants will be followed for clinical evidence of bleeding and will be treated as needed for any bleeding that may occur.
Repository samples will only be used for genetic and protein tests of hemostasis, coagulation, and fibrinolysis.
SHIP is designed as a one-sided non-inferiority study. The null hypothesis is that the proportion of patients not given prophylactic FFP who meet the criteria for the bleeding endpoint is at least .04 higher than the proportion of patients given prophylactic FFP who meet the criteria for the bleeding endpoint. The goal of this study is to determine whether there is strong evidence that the difference between the two treatment plans is not that large.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PREVENTION
NONE
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
FFP Infusion
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Platelet count greater than or equal to 70,000/microliter
* INR greater than or equal to 1.3 and less than or equal to 1.9 (must not be based on a sample drawn within 24 hours of any prior FFP treatment)
* A PTT less than or equal to 50 sec
Exclusion Criteria
* History of severe allergic reaction to plasma products
* Use of any of the following second-generation anti-platelet agents: abciximab, tirofiban, clopidogrel, or ticlopidine
* Currently receiving any dialysis
* History of clinically significant bleeding diathesis, including Hemophilia A or B, von Willebrand's Disease, or congenital Factor VII deficiency
* Known history of a coagulation-factor inhibitor within the month prior to the procedure (In the absence of a known history, testing is not required)
* Active major bleeding; bleeding from gastrointestinal, pulmonary, mouth/throat, genito-urinary tract, or central nervous system sites (excludes guaiac positive stool sample without gross blood or melena, minor epistaxis, minor gum bleeding, microscopic hematuria, superficial bruises, normal menses, or minor vaginal spotting)
* Pediatric patients requiring sedation in order to undergo a post-procedure ultrasound examination
* Already received FFP in the 24 hours before the planned invasive procedure
4 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
NIH
Transfusion Medicine/Hemostasis Clinical Research Network
NETWORK
Massachusetts General Hospital
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Susan Assmann, PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
New England Research Institutes, Inc.
Mark Brecher, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
University of North Carolina Hospital
George Buchanan, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
University of Texas SW Medical Center
James Bussel, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Weill Medical College of Cornell University
John Hess, MD, MPH
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
University of Maryland, Baltimore
Christopher D. Hillyer, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Emory University
Barbara Konkle, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
University of Pennsylvania
David Kuter, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Massachusetts General Hospital
Jeffrey McCullough, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
University of Minnesota
Janice McFarland, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Blood Center of SE Wisconsin
Paul Ness, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Johns Hopkins University
Thomas Ortel, MD, PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Duke University
Sherrill J. Slichter, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Puget Sound Blood Center Div of Research
Ronald Strauss, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
University of Iowa
Darrell Triulzi, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
University of Pittsburgh Presbyterian and Shadyside Hospital
James R. Stubbs, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Mayo Clinic
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Emory University
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics
Iowa City, Iowa, United States
University of Maryland Medical Center
Baltimore, Maryland, United States
Johns Hopkins Hospital
Baltimore, Maryland, United States
Massachusetts General Hospital
Boston, Massachusetts, United States
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
Mayo Clinic
Rochester, Minnesota, United States
Weill Medical College of Cornell University
New York, New York, United States
University of North Carolina Hospital
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States
Duke University Medical Center
Durham, North Carolina, United States
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
University of Pittsburgh Presbyterian and Shadyside Hospital
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
University of Texas SW Medical Center
Dallas, Texas, United States
Puget Sound Blood Center Div of Research
Seattle, Washington, United States
Blood Center of SE Wisconsin
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
326
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.