Evaluation of the GORE Conformable TAG® Thoracic Endoprosthesis for Treatment of Acute Complicated Type B Aortic Dissection
NCT ID: NCT00908388
Last Updated: 2017-10-27
Study Results
Outcome measurements, participant flow, baseline characteristics, and adverse events have been published for this study.
View full resultsBasic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
50 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2009-10-31
2017-02-28
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Keywords
Explore important study keywords that can help with search, categorization, and topic discovery.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
NON_RANDOMIZED
SINGLE_GROUP
TREATMENT
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
GORE Conformable TAG® Device Surgical Implant
GORE TAG® Thoracic Endoprosthesis
Endoprosthetic Implant
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
GORE TAG® Thoracic Endoprosthesis
Endoprosthetic Implant
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Dissection is acute Time from symptom onset to dissection diagnosis ≤14 days
* Dissection is complicated
Subject must present with at least one of the following:
* Rupture in the setting of an aortic dissection defined as hemorrhage outside of the aortic boundaries -which is noted by CT scan (hemorrhage must be differentiated from reactive effusions by the investigator, or if equivocal, having elevated Hounsefield units as determined by the radiologist).
* Clinical evidence of malperfusion, in the setting of an aortic dissection, defined as:
* Clinical or radiographic evidence of visceral hypoperfusion.
* Clinical or radiographic evidence of renal hypoperfusion.
* Clinical or radiographic evidence of lower extremity hypoperfusion.
* Clinical or radiographic evidence of spinal cord hypoperfusion.
* Dissection is type B Entire dissection is distal to the left subclavian artery
* Primary Treatment Indication is Class 1 Aortic Dissection 46 Classical aortic dissection with intimal flap between true and false lumen with double barrel flow in thoracic aorta
* Subjects with multiple entry tears are allowed to be enrolled in the study
2. Age 18 to 80 years
3. Primary treatment is endovascular treatment with the CTAG device. Adjunctive treatments may include left subclavian artery revascularization, percutaneous fenestration, aortic stenting, peripheral vessel stenting, surgical fenestration, and/or peripheral artery bypass
4. Proximal landing zone characteristics include:
* Proximal extent of intended proximal landing zone cannot be dissected
* Length ≥ 2.0 cm proximal to the primary entry tear
* Trans-aortic diameter at proximal extent of intended landing zone between 16-42 mm (diameter assessed by flow lumen and thrombus, if present; calcium excluded)
* Cannot be aneurysmal, heavily calcified, or have excessive intraluminal thrombus
* Must be native aorta
* May include left subclavian artery, if necessary
5. Subject is capable of complying with protocol requirements, including follow-up
6. Informed Consent Form is signed by subject or legal representative
Exclusion Criteria
2. Concomitant aneurysm/disease of the ascending aorta, aortic arch, or abdominal aorta requiring repair (dissection extension into the abdominal aorta is acceptable)
3. Prior repair of DTA
4. Infected aorta
5. Subject has a systemic infection and may be at increased risk of endovascular graft infection
6. Persistent refractory shock (systolic blood pressure \<90 mm Hg)
7. Bowel necrosis (Bowel necrosis will be characterized by direct observation with surgical exploration, or elevated serum lactate level and CT findings of portal venous gas, free intra-abdominal gas, pneumatosis intramural gas, and poor mucosal enhancement of thickened bowel wall)
8. Renal failure , defined as baseline creatinine ≥ 2.5 mg/dl
9. ASA risk classification = V (Moribund patient not expected to live 24 hours with or without operation)
10. Pregnant female
11. Major surgery within 30 days of treatment (other than left subclavian artery bypass or transposition)
12. Degenerative connective tissue disease, e.g., Marfan or Ehler-Danlos Syndrome
13. Treatment in another drug or medical device study within 1 year of study enrollment
14. History of stimulant abuse, e.g., cocaine or amphetamine, within 1 year of treatment
15. Tortuous or stenotic iliac and/or femoral arteries and the inability to use a conduit for vascular access
16. Planned coverage of left carotid or celiac arteries with the CTAG device
17. The planned endovascular procedure involves alterations to the CTAG device
18. Subject has known sensitivities or allergies to the device materials
18 Years
80 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
W.L.Gore & Associates
INDUSTRY
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.
Richard Cambria, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Massachusetts General Hospital
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Birmingham, Alabama, United States
Los Angeles, California, United States
San Francisco, California, United States
Stanford, California, United States
Torrance, California, United States
Gainesville, Florida, United States
St. Petersburg, Florida, United States
Tampa, Florida, United States
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
Chicago, Illinois, United States
Peoria, Illinois, United States
Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
Kansas City, Kansas, United States
Baltimore, Maryland, United States
Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States
Grand Rapids, Michigan, United States
Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
Plymouth, Minnesota, United States
St Louis, Missouri, United States
St Louis, Missouri, United States
Lebanon, New Hampshire, United States
Albany, New York, United States
New York, New York, United States
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States
Charlotte, North Carolina, United States
Durham, North Carolina, United States
Cleveland, Ohio, United States
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
Houston, Texas, United States
Temple, Texas, United States
Charlottesville, Virginia, United States
Madison, Wisconsin, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Panthofer AM, Olson SL, Harris DG, Matsumura JS. Derivation and validation of thoracic sarcopenia assessment in patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair. J Vasc Surg. 2019 May;69(5):1379-1386. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.08.180. Epub 2018 Dec 28.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
TAG 08-01
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id