Thoracic Endovascular Repair Versus Open Surgery for Blunt Injury

NCT ID: NCT01852773

Last Updated: 2016-09-13

Study Results

Results pending

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.

Recruitment Status

WITHDRAWN

Study Classification

OBSERVATIONAL

Study Start Date

2013-05-31

Study Completion Date

2016-12-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

This study aims to increase understanding of the short-term and long-term outcome of blunt aortic injury (BAI) and to discern if there is an advantage resulting from the type of operative treatment used to manage it, either the classic open surgical repair or a newer technique known as thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR). Specifically, this study will answer the following questions regarding patients suffering BAI:

1. What clinical variables affect short-term mortality and neurologic outcome?
2. What are the long-term treatment-associated complications of open repair and TEVAR?
3. In patients with a similar injury and physiologic profile, is there a survival advantage resulting from the type of operative treatment?

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Blunt aortic injury (BAI) is responsible for 16% of traffic fatalities. Historically, about 80% of these deaths occur at the scene and 20% are transported to the hospital. With the development of systems of trauma care and other advances, it is likely that more patients with BAI will arrive alive at trauma centers.

Patients with BAI who arrive at the hospital can be treated with either classic open surgery or with endovascular techniques. A relatively new endovascular technique, thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR), has been recommended by the Society of Vascular Surgery (SVS) as the procedure of choice for BAI. However, the data on which this was based was described as "very low quality evidence" (Grade 2, C), i.e., no better than expert opinion. It is important to note that the committee responsible for the recommendation of the SVS consisted of vascular surgeons, without input from trauma surgeons who are primarily responsible for the management of the trauma patient with BAI. This omission may have biased the literature review in favor of TEVAR because there was inadequate data in the published research to account for disparities of injury severity and physiologic compromise, both of which significantly impact outcome.

The investigators reviewed the recent literature on the management of BAI to determine if sufficient data exists to perform an "apples to apples" comparison between TEVAR and classic open surgery. The investigators believe that sufficient clinical equipoise has not been reached such that a prospective, randomized clinical trial could be undertaken.

Therefore, the investigators aim to conduct a multicenter 5-year combined historical cohort and concurrent cohort observational study of the short-term and long-term outcome of BAI. Such a study would answer the following clinically relevant questions in patients suffering BAI:

1. What clinical variables affect short-term mortality and neurologic outcome?
2. What are the long-term treatment-associated complications of open repair and TEVAR?
3. In patients with a similar injury and physiologic profile, is there a survival advantage resulting from the type of operative treatment?

The proposed study will be done by Scripps Mercy Hospital Trauma Service with the participation of interested member trauma centers of the Multicenter Trials Group of the Western Trauma Association.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Blunt Injury

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Observational Model Type

COHORT

Study Time Perspective

PROSPECTIVE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Blunt Aortic Injury Patients

Trauma patients with blunt aortic injury. This Cohort of trauma patients will require management with one of two interventions. They will require either; Open repair of thoracic aorta injury (Intervention #1) or TEVAR (Intervention #2). As of yet the short term and long term outcomes of these two treatments have not been directly compared.

Open repair of thoracic aorta injury

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

open surgical management of aortic injury

TEVAR

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Use of endovascular (minimally invasive) techniques for repair of aortic injury

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Open repair of thoracic aorta injury

open surgical management of aortic injury

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

TEVAR

Use of endovascular (minimally invasive) techniques for repair of aortic injury

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

Open chest repair of injured aorta Thoracic endovascular aortic repair

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Clinical diagnosis of blunt aortic injury (BAI)

Exclusion Criteria

* Clinical diagnosis of penetrating aortic injury
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Western Trauma Association

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Scripps Health

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Responsibility Role SPONSOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Steven R Shackford, MD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Scripps Mercy Hospital, Division of Trauma Surgery

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Scripps Mercy Hospital

San Diego, California, United States

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United States

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

IRB-11-5736

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.