A Trial of Supplemental CO2 Versus Room Air in Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy

NCT ID: NCT02619656

Last Updated: 2015-12-02

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

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

35 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2012-04-30

Study Completion Date

2015-06-30

Brief Summary

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

The investigators hypothesize that using carbon dioxide for PEG placement versus using room air will decrease post-procedure pneumoperitoneum as well as improve post-procedure bloating/pain, and waist circumference.

Detailed Description

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

Background and study aims: Pneumoperitoneum following PEG placement has been reported in up to 60% of cases, and while usually benign and self-limited, it can lead to evaluation for suspected perforation. This study was designed to determine whether using CO2 compared to ambient air for insufflation during PEG reduces post-procedure pneumoperitoneum.

Patients and Methods: Prospective, double blind, randomized trial of 35 consecutive patients undergoing PEG at a single academic medical center. Patients were randomized to insufflation with CO2 or ambient air. Primary outcome was pneumoperitoneum determined by left-lateral decubitus abdominal x-rays 30 min after PEG placement. Secondary endpoints included abdominal distention, pain, and bloating.

Conditions

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

Pneumoperitoneum

Study Design

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

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

PREVENTION

Blinding Strategy

DOUBLE

Participants Caregivers

Study Groups

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

Treatment

Patients randomized to insufflation with CO2.

Intervention: CO2 Insufflation with CO2Efficient Endoscopic Insufflator on managed flow setting at 3.4 L/min

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

CO2 insufflation

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Patients were randomized to insufflation with CO2.

Control

Patients randomized to insufflation with ambient air.

Intervention: Ambient air insufflation with Evis Exera 111 CLV-190 on medium air flow setting 0.68 L/min

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Ambient air insufflation

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Patients were randomized to insufflation with ambient air.

Interventions

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

CO2 insufflation

Patients were randomized to insufflation with CO2.

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Ambient air insufflation

Patients were randomized to insufflation with ambient air.

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Other Intervention Names

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

CO2Efficient Endoscopic Insufflator on flow setting 3.4L/min Evis Exera 111 CLV-190 on medium air flow setting 0.68L/min

Eligibility Criteria

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

Inclusion Criteria

* Participants must be over the age of 18 and need a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

Exclusion Criteria

* None
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.

University of Utah

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

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

John C. Fang, M.D.

Chief, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

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

Christopher Murphy, MD

Role: STUDY_CHAIR

University of Utah SOM

John C Fang, MD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

University of Utah SOM

Locations

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

University of Utah SOM

Salt Lake City, Utah, 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.

55102

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id