Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Subcortical Parafascicular Access for Clot Evacuation
NCT ID: NCT02331719
Last Updated: 2024-10-03
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.
COMPLETED
16 participants
OBSERVATIONAL
2014-08-31
2017-10-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
In an effort to address the issues with conventional treatments, a new integrated systematic approach has been developed. This approach utilizes an educational process where specific core competencies (pillars) of mapping, navigation, access, optics and automated resection have been integrated into a single standardized system to deliver targeted therapy for an individual patient based on location and patient factors. This system has demonstrated safety and efficacy in oncology patients and is also FDA approved for use in the ICH patient population as well.
This registry will collect data form multiple site that preform the MiSPACE procedure as part of clinical care. The intent of this registry is to collect data on the economic impact as well as clinical outcomes using the MiSPACE approach with the integrated technology in the early treatment of ICH.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Clinical Outcomes Following Parafascicular Surgical Evacuation of Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Pilot Study
NCT01971359
Longitudinal Cohort Study on ICH Care
NCT03183167
REpeated ASSEssment of SurvivorS in Intracerebral Hemorrhage Study
NCT05611918
International Care Bundle Evaluation in Cerebral Hemorrhage Research
NCT06429332
Early Prophylactic Decompressive Hemicraniectomy Following Endovascular Therapy in Large Hemispheric Infarct Trial
NCT07118345
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Sites will identify, recruit, obtain consent for subjects and collect data using standard forms; these activities will be monitored remotely by the coordinating site. Data from the participating hospitals will be checked for heterogeneity, queried and subsequently pooled. Baseline patient characteristics and demographics, Hemphill and Essen predictive scores, NIHSS stroke severity score, functional status from the Barthel index and mRS score, and ICH volumetric assessments, will be presented as means, medians, or proportions, as appropriate. Eligibility and consent rates will be derived for each center.
Analyses will be largely descriptive in nature. Follow-up assessments at 30 and 90 days, for composite outcome of death or disability (defined as mRS\>2), and death and disability separately, will be described with proportions. Tallies of surgical complications will also be derived as separate outcomes.
Analysis of 30- and 90-day status will entail an informal comparison for the purposes of providing preliminary evidence and for planning of a larger comparative trial. The proportion of patients under experimental treatment who suffer from death or dependency at 30-days, as determined by cutoffs on the modified Rankin Scale with exact binomial upper and lower 90% confidence limits will be used in a comparison to our criteria of: (1) 65% (historical proportion of patients under medical management, unselected for baseline risk), and (2) 50% (proportion of patients under other minimally invasive surgical techniques unselected for baseline risk). This confidence limit comparative approach provides a flexible method of assessment of non-inferiority, equivalence, and superiority. The unselected population will, however, be a mix of patients at different levels of baseline risk, and so a follow-up stratified analysis will be conducted if counts permit. The unselected population will be matched using demographics, lesion characteristics and comorbidities as close as possible to the study group. A heterogeneity index will be used for comparison. As a corollary to this analysis, baseline predictive scores (translated from scores to percentages/risks) will be used to calculate expected counts of 30 and 90 day status stratified within the 0-3 range of the Hemphill ICH score and 0-10 range of the Essen ICH score, and these expected counts will be compared to observed counts using a Fisher Exact Test.
Fifty (50) patients were chosen as a convenient sample size, based on enrollments from all of the participating hospitals, with recruitment accomplished in a reasonable timeframe of 2 years. About 65% of unselected patients with ICH (that is, not stratified by baseline predicted risk) have a documented 30- day composite outcome of death or dependency under medical management. Reviews of other types of minimallyinvasive ICH surgeries provide evidence of significantly improved outcomes (meta-analysis odds ratio 0.54 (0.39, 0.76)). An odds ratio of 0.54 indicates a reduction in risk from 65% to about 50% (15% absolute reduction).
Assuming the new procedure is truly at least as effective as other minimally invasive surgeries (50% 30-day composite outcome risk), and therefore 15% more effective than conventional management, 50 patients provides 66% surity that a 95% 1-sided confidence interval will exclude the chance that the new procedure is worse than medical management.
An alternative method of framing this, based on an exact one-sided binomial test of a one-sample proportion and an alpha level of 5%, is that a sample size of 50 patients provides approximately 66% surity/power that the new procedure is superior to medical management (i.e., lower than 65% suffering from death or poor functional outcomes). The computed critical value for this test, to provide some initial evidence of superiority, is observing no more than 26 patients (out of 50) suffering from death or dependency under the new surgical procedure. The surity/power of 66% used as an assumption above is permissive. The study size and preliminary nature of the results will not be sufficient to perform robust statistical testing for superiority or non-inferiority of the new parafascicular ICH-evacuation technique, though results from this registry will provide a crucial first look at effectiveness, and health costs.
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.
CASE_CONTROL
OTHER
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
MiSPACE Eligible Cohort
This will be a prospective record review of patients where the MiSPACE technique is being/was used for the treatment of their ICH.
No interventions assigned to this group
Historical Cohort
This is a retrospective records review of patients who received either medical intervention or conventional surgical intervention for the treatment of their ICH.
No interventions assigned to this group
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Has made the clinical treatment decision to have parafascicular minimally invasive subcortical (MIS) access to treat subcortical intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) using the systems approach outlined in this protocol
* 18 - 80 years old
* Symptom onset to surgery \< 24 hours (target \< 8hours)
* Presurgical Glascow Coma Score ≥ 8
* Hematoma volume \< 60ml
* Minimal or no ventricular extension (corresponding to 50% or less of each ventricle)
Exclusion Criteria
* Infratentorial ICH
* Isolated IVH
* Uncorrected coagulopathy
* Significant premorbid disability (mRS\>1)
* Hydrocephalus
* Contraindication to safe surgical procedure
18 Years
80 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Wake Forest University Health Sciences
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.
Amin B Kassam, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Wake Forest University Health Sciences
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
University Of Arkansas of Medical Sciences
Little Rock, Arkansas, United States
University of Colorado
Aurora, Colorado, United States
Emory University at Grady Memorial Hospital
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
OSF Saint Francis Medical Center
Peoria, Illinois, United States
IU Health Neuroscience Center
Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
St. Louis University
St Louis, Missouri, United States
Riverside Methodist Hospital (OhioHealth)
Columbus, Ohio, United States
Aurora Health Care, Aurora St. Luke's Medical Center
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.
14-39E
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.