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
42 participants
Study Classification
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Start Date
2017-07-01
Study Completion Date
2020-02-28
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is very high in trauma patients, secondary to tissue injury, venous status from immobilization, and thrombophilia. As such, early initiation of VTE prophylaxis is essential in this population. The competing risks of life threatening hemorrhage and VTE need to be considered very carefully. Potential approaches to VTE prophylaxis include pharmacologic means, and mechanical devices. For patients unable to receive pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis, retrievable inferior vena cava filters (rIVCFs) may be placed until low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) can be initiated, as per guidelines such as Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma
The investigators propose a feasibility study to determine whether or not our center can insert rIVCFs in at-risk trauma patients expeditiously enough to cause a meaningful reduction in the time they are left unprotected to PE.
The investigators propose a feasibility study to determine whether or not our center can insert rIVCFs in at-risk trauma patients expeditiously enough to cause a meaningful reduction in the time they are left unprotected to PE.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Using a Novel Algorithm to Improve the Retrieval Rate of Inferior Vena Cava Filters (iRetrieve Study)
NCT02160964
Venous Thromboembolism,
Pulmonary Embolism,
Deep Vein Thrombosis,
UNKNOWN
Cook IVC Filter Study
NCT02046096
Pulmonary Embolism
COMPLETED
NA
Retrievability and Incidence of Complex Retrieval in Celect Versus Denali Filter
NCT03987321
Deep Venous Thrombosis
UNKNOWN
NA
Study of IVC Filter Retrieval With the Günther Tulip Vena Cava Filter
NCT00196118
Pulmonary Embolism
Venous Thromboembolism
COMPLETED
PHASE4
Crux Biomedical Evaluation of the Crux Inferior Vena Cava Filter System 3 ("RETRIEVE 3")
NCT01120522
Pulmonary Embolism
COMPLETED
PHASE3
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is very high in trauma patients, secondary to tissue injury, venous status from immobilization, and thrombophilia. As such, early initiation of VTE prophylaxis is essential in this population. The competing risks of life threatening hemorrhage and VTE need to be considered very carefully. Potential approaches to VTE prophylaxis include pharmacologic means, and mechanical devices. For patients unable to receive pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis, retrievable inferior vena cava filters (rIVCFs) may be placed until low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) can be initiated.
The need for mechanical VTE prophylaxis in patients unable to receive pharmacologic therapy is underscored by Geerts and colleagues' prospective study of trauma patients who did not receive anticoagulation. In their study, 58% of their 349 trauma patients sustained deep venous thromboses (DVT). \[Geerts et a., 1994\] Furthermore, a confirmed or clinically suspected pulmonary embolus (PE) was identified in an additional 5% of patients. Importantly, this study excluded patients who died during the first 5 days of admission. However, the highest risk of VTE occurs in the first 4 days after admission and many advocate early insertion of rIVCF \[Owings et al. 1997, O'Malley et al. 1990, Carlin et al. 2002, Haut et al. 2014\]. Coincidentally, VTE prophylaxis is often withheld pending repeat neurologic imaging and / or surgical intervention.
Current guidelines on the use of rIVCFs are contradictory. The Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma's (EAST) practice management guideline suggests the use of rIVCFs are advisable in the "very-high-risk trauma patients". Such patients are defined as the those who cannot receive anticoagulation because of increased bleeding risk and have sustained injuries preventing mobilization such as: i) severe closed head injury (GCS \< 8) ii) incomplete spinal cord injury with paraplegia or quadriplegia iii) complex pelvic fracture with associated long bone fractures iv) multiple long bone fractures \[Rogers et al 2002\]. Contrasting this, the American College of Chest Physicians sated in their 2012 Guideline, that there is no role for rIVCFs in primary VTE prevention. \[Gould et al. 2012\]
Reflecting this lack of consensus in guidelines, there is practice variability among major trauma centres. In an American based survey study of 131 Trauma Directors, LMWH was the preferred method for VTE prophylaxis in over half (51%) of the responders, followed by intermittent pneumatic compression devices (IPCD, 42%), Foot pump (8%) Low Dose Heparin (LDH, 7%) and rIVCFs (1%). In patients with contraindications to pharmacologic prophylaxis, the favoured approach for VTE Prophylaxis is IPCD (80%) followed by rIVCF (16%) and foot pump (9%). \[Knudson et al. 2004\] More work is needed to improve our understanding of the optimal role for rIVCFs, particularly considering recent advances in, and physician experience with rIVCF technology.
One of the most cited concerns with the use of rIVCF in trauma patients is the low reported retrieval rates ranging from 21-35% of patients. \[Kirilcuk et al. 2005, Antevil et al. 2006, Karmy-Jones et al., 2007\] The need for VTE prophylaxis in trauma patients is usually temporary, and long term filter use is associated with an increased VTE risk, which was demonstrated in the PREPIC-1 trial and the 8-year follow up study examining the use of permanent IVCF in non-trauma patients with DVT for PE prevention \[Decousus et al. 1998, PREPIC Study Group, 2005\]. Of note, these trials were examining the role of rIVCF in patients for secondary prophylaxis in at risk patients with known VTE disease. The low retrieval rates of rIVCFs that have been reported in the Unites States are not a problem in our Canadian Lead Trauma Centre. We recently demonstrated a 97% retrieval rate in trauma patients surviving to discharge. \[Leeper et al. 2015\] We advocate a trial of early rIVCF use followed by prompt removal once medical prophylaxis is safe.
There is a paucity of data regarding the use of rIVCFs in the Canadian setting, and our group is currently surveying Canadian trauma directors to improve our understanding of current practice. Despite the current deficiency of evidence, many Level 1 North American Trauma centres use rIVCF for primary VTE prophylaxis in their at risk trauma patients, as per EAST guidelines. In a recent meta-analysis by Haut et al. that reviewed 8 studies, they identified a reduction in PE incidence with rIVCF use, but concluded that further studies are required. \[Haut et al. 2014\]
The investigators propose a feasibility study to determine whether or not our center can insert rIVCFs in at-risk trauma patients expeditiously enough to cause a meaningful reduction in the time they are left unprotected to PE.
The need for mechanical VTE prophylaxis in patients unable to receive pharmacologic therapy is underscored by Geerts and colleagues' prospective study of trauma patients who did not receive anticoagulation. In their study, 58% of their 349 trauma patients sustained deep venous thromboses (DVT). \[Geerts et a., 1994\] Furthermore, a confirmed or clinically suspected pulmonary embolus (PE) was identified in an additional 5% of patients. Importantly, this study excluded patients who died during the first 5 days of admission. However, the highest risk of VTE occurs in the first 4 days after admission and many advocate early insertion of rIVCF \[Owings et al. 1997, O'Malley et al. 1990, Carlin et al. 2002, Haut et al. 2014\]. Coincidentally, VTE prophylaxis is often withheld pending repeat neurologic imaging and / or surgical intervention.
Current guidelines on the use of rIVCFs are contradictory. The Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma's (EAST) practice management guideline suggests the use of rIVCFs are advisable in the "very-high-risk trauma patients". Such patients are defined as the those who cannot receive anticoagulation because of increased bleeding risk and have sustained injuries preventing mobilization such as: i) severe closed head injury (GCS \< 8) ii) incomplete spinal cord injury with paraplegia or quadriplegia iii) complex pelvic fracture with associated long bone fractures iv) multiple long bone fractures \[Rogers et al 2002\]. Contrasting this, the American College of Chest Physicians sated in their 2012 Guideline, that there is no role for rIVCFs in primary VTE prevention. \[Gould et al. 2012\]
Reflecting this lack of consensus in guidelines, there is practice variability among major trauma centres. In an American based survey study of 131 Trauma Directors, LMWH was the preferred method for VTE prophylaxis in over half (51%) of the responders, followed by intermittent pneumatic compression devices (IPCD, 42%), Foot pump (8%) Low Dose Heparin (LDH, 7%) and rIVCFs (1%). In patients with contraindications to pharmacologic prophylaxis, the favoured approach for VTE Prophylaxis is IPCD (80%) followed by rIVCF (16%) and foot pump (9%). \[Knudson et al. 2004\] More work is needed to improve our understanding of the optimal role for rIVCFs, particularly considering recent advances in, and physician experience with rIVCF technology.
One of the most cited concerns with the use of rIVCF in trauma patients is the low reported retrieval rates ranging from 21-35% of patients. \[Kirilcuk et al. 2005, Antevil et al. 2006, Karmy-Jones et al., 2007\] The need for VTE prophylaxis in trauma patients is usually temporary, and long term filter use is associated with an increased VTE risk, which was demonstrated in the PREPIC-1 trial and the 8-year follow up study examining the use of permanent IVCF in non-trauma patients with DVT for PE prevention \[Decousus et al. 1998, PREPIC Study Group, 2005\]. Of note, these trials were examining the role of rIVCF in patients for secondary prophylaxis in at risk patients with known VTE disease. The low retrieval rates of rIVCFs that have been reported in the Unites States are not a problem in our Canadian Lead Trauma Centre. We recently demonstrated a 97% retrieval rate in trauma patients surviving to discharge. \[Leeper et al. 2015\] We advocate a trial of early rIVCF use followed by prompt removal once medical prophylaxis is safe.
There is a paucity of data regarding the use of rIVCFs in the Canadian setting, and our group is currently surveying Canadian trauma directors to improve our understanding of current practice. Despite the current deficiency of evidence, many Level 1 North American Trauma centres use rIVCF for primary VTE prophylaxis in their at risk trauma patients, as per EAST guidelines. In a recent meta-analysis by Haut et al. that reviewed 8 studies, they identified a reduction in PE incidence with rIVCF use, but concluded that further studies are required. \[Haut et al. 2014\]
The investigators propose a feasibility study to determine whether or not our center can insert rIVCFs in at-risk trauma patients expeditiously enough to cause a meaningful reduction in the time they are left unprotected to PE.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Pulmonary Embolism
Trauma
Venous Thromboembolism
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
TREATMENT
Blinding Strategy
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
rIVCF
Randomized to receive insertion of retrievable inferior vena cava filter until chemical anticoagulation can be safely administered.
Group Type
EXPERIMENTAL
Cook 'Celect' retrievable inferior vena cava filter
Intervention Type
DEVICE
Cook 'Celect' device will be deployed If randomized to rIVCF insertion
Standard Care
Randomized to not receive insertion of retrievable inferior vena cava filter.
Group Type
NO_INTERVENTION
No interventions assigned to this group
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Cook 'Celect' retrievable inferior vena cava filter
Cook 'Celect' device will be deployed If randomized to rIVCF insertion
Intervention Type
DEVICE
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* consecutive age adult trauma patients who are:
1. Deemed unable to receive medial VTE prophylaxis within 72 hours post injury based on traumatologists' suspicion of increased bleeding risk, peri-spinal cord bleeding risk, or need for multiple surgical interventions.
AND
2. have at-least on of the following high risk VTE injuries as per EAST Guidelines:
1. severe closed head injury (GCS 8 or less upon presentation)
2. incomplete spinal cord injury with paraplegia or quadriplegia
3. complex pelvic fracture with associated long bone fracture(s)
4. multiple long bone fractures
1. Deemed unable to receive medial VTE prophylaxis within 72 hours post injury based on traumatologists' suspicion of increased bleeding risk, peri-spinal cord bleeding risk, or need for multiple surgical interventions.
AND
2. have at-least on of the following high risk VTE injuries as per EAST Guidelines:
1. severe closed head injury (GCS 8 or less upon presentation)
2. incomplete spinal cord injury with paraplegia or quadriplegia
3. complex pelvic fracture with associated long bone fracture(s)
4. multiple long bone fractures
Exclusion Criteria
1. Patients not expected to survive for at least 72 hours post trauma
2. Patients with known uncorrectable coagulopathy
3. Patients known to be unable to receive a rIVC filter as part of this trial (for anatomical reasons or standard contraindication for device insertion)
4. Known active venous thromboembolic disease
5. Pregnancy
2. Patients with known uncorrectable coagulopathy
3. Patients known to be unable to receive a rIVC filter as part of this trial (for anatomical reasons or standard contraindication for device insertion)
4. Known active venous thromboembolic disease
5. Pregnancy
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.
London Health Sciences Centre Research Institute OR Lawson Research Institute of St. Joseph's
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
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Victoria Hospital
London, Ontario, Canada
Site Status
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Canada
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Geerts WH, Code KI, Jay RM, Chen E, Szalai JP. A prospective study of venous thromboembolism after major trauma. N Engl J Med. 1994 Dec 15;331(24):1601-6. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199412153312401.
Reference Type
RESULT
Owings JT, Kraut E, Battistella F, Cornelius JT, O'Malley R. Timing of the occurrence of pulmonary embolism in trauma patients. Arch Surg. 1997 Aug;132(8):862-6; discussion 866-7. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.1997.01430320064010.
Reference Type
RESULT
O'Malley KF, Ross SE. Pulmonary embolism in major trauma patients. J Trauma. 1990 Jun;30(6):748-50. doi: 10.1097/00005373-199006000-00018.
Reference Type
RESULT
Carlin AM, Tyburski JG, Wilson RF, Steffes C. Prophylactic and therapeutic inferior vena cava filters to prevent pulmonary emboli in trauma patients. Arch Surg. 2002 May;137(5):521-5; discussion 525-7. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.137.5.521.
Reference Type
RESULT
Haut ER, Garcia LJ, Shihab HM, Brotman DJ, Stevens KA, Sharma R, Chelladurai Y, Akande TO, Shermock KM, Kebede S, Segal JB, Singh S. The effectiveness of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters in trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Surg. 2014 Feb;149(2):194-202. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.3970.
Reference Type
RESULT
Rogers FB, Cipolle MD, Velmahos G, Rozycki G, Luchette FA. Practice management guidelines for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in trauma patients: the EAST practice management guidelines work group. J Trauma. 2002 Jul;53(1):142-64. doi: 10.1097/00005373-200207000-00032. No abstract available.
Reference Type
RESULT
Gould MK, Garcia DA, Wren SM, Karanicolas PJ, Arcelus JI, Heit JA, Samama CM. Prevention of VTE in nonorthopedic surgical patients: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012 Feb;141(2 Suppl):e227S-e277S. doi: 10.1378/chest.11-2297.
Reference Type
RESULT
Knudson MM, Ikossi DG, Khaw L, Morabito D, Speetzen LS. Thromboembolism after trauma: an analysis of 1602 episodes from the American College of Surgeons National Trauma Data Bank. Ann Surg. 2004 Sep;240(3):490-6; discussion 496-8. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000137138.40116.6c.
Reference Type
RESULT
Kirilcuk NN, Herget EJ, Dicker RA, Spain DA, Hellinger JC, Brundage SI. Are temporary inferior vena cava filters really temporary? Am J Surg. 2005 Dec;190(6):858-63. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.08.009.
Reference Type
RESULT
Antevil JL, Sise MJ, Sack DI, Sasadeusz KJ, Swanson SM, Rivera L, Lome BR, Weingarten KE, Kaminski SS. Retrievable vena cava filters for preventing pulmonary embolism in trauma patients: a cautionary tale. J Trauma. 2006 Jan;60(1):35-40. doi: 10.1097/01.ta.0000197607.23019.ab.
Reference Type
RESULT
Karmy-Jones R, Jurkovich GJ, Velmahos GC, Burdick T, Spaniolas K, Todd SR, McNally M, Jacoby RC, Link D, Janczyk RJ, Ivascu FA, McCann M, Obeid F, Hoff WS, McQuay N Jr, Tieu BH, Schreiber MA, Nirula R, Brasel K, Dunn JA, Gambrell D, Huckfeldt R, Harper J, Schaffer KB, Tominaga GT, Vinces FY, Sperling D, Hoyt D, Coimbra R, Rosengart MR, Forsythe R, Cothren C, Moore EE, Haut ER, Hayanga AJ, Hird L, White C, Grossman J, Nagy K, Livaudais W, Wood R, Zengerink I, Kortbeek JB. Practice patterns and outcomes of retrievable vena cava filters in trauma patients: an AAST multicenter study. J Trauma. 2007 Jan;62(1):17-24; discussion 24-5. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31802dd72a.
Reference Type
RESULT
Decousus H, Leizorovicz A, Parent F, Page Y, Tardy B, Girard P, Laporte S, Faivre R, Charbonnier B, Barral FG, Huet Y, Simonneau G. A clinical trial of vena caval filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism in patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis. Prevention du Risque d'Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1998 Feb 12;338(7):409-15. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199802123380701.
Reference Type
RESULT
PREPIC Study Group. Eight-year follow-up of patients with permanent vena cava filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism: the PREPIC (Prevention du Risque d'Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave) randomized study. Circulation. 2005 Jul 19;112(3):416-22. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.512834. Epub 2005 Jul 11.
Reference Type
RESULT
Leeper WR, Murphy PB, Vogt KN, Leeper TJ, Kribs SW, Gray DK, Parry NG. Are retrievable vena cava filters placed in trauma patients really retrievable? Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2016 Aug;42(4):459-464. doi: 10.1007/s00068-015-0553-5. Epub 2015 Jul 23.
Reference Type
RESULT
Young T, Sriram KB. Vena caval filters for the prevention of pulmonary embolism. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 8;10(10):CD006212. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006212.pub5.
Reference Type
DERIVED
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
108169
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.
Predicting the Safety and Effectiveness of Inferior Vena Cava Filters
NCT02381509
COMPLETED
Filter Initial & Long Term Evaluation After Placement and Retrieval Registry
NCT01158482
RECRUITING
A Safety and Efficacy Study for Implantation and Retrieval Procedures Using the VENATECH® Retrieval Filter System
NCT02674672
COMPLETED
NA
A Prospective, Multi-Center Study of the Bard® Denali™ Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filter System
NCT01305564
COMPLETED
NA
A Preliminary Clinical Usability Study for the Recovery Force DVT II Cuff
NCT03328624
COMPLETED
NA
RexMedical- Option* Vena Cava Filter IDE Study
NCT00488865
COMPLETED
NA
Assessment of Distal Protection Device in Patients at High Risk for Distal Embolism in Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS)
NCT01460966
COMPLETED
NA
Predictors of Attempted Inferior Vena Cava Filters Retrieval.
NCT04846725
COMPLETED
Crux Biomedical Evaluation of the Crux Inferior Vena Cava Filter 4
NCT01120535
COMPLETED
PHASE3
ThrombX Retriever for Acute Ischemic Stroke Trial
NCT05270122
UNKNOWN
NA
Crux Biomedical Vena Cava Filter Study - United States
NCT01120509
COMPLETED
PHASE3
Crux Biomedical IVC Filter - Evaluation of the Crux Inferior Vena Cava Filter System (Retrieve)
NCT00605332
COMPLETED
PHASE2
Study of the Use of Coated Venous Catheters in the Critically Ill Child
NCT00202813
COMPLETED
PHASE4
Evaluation of the Technical Success of IVUS Guided VCF Placement Using the LUMIFI™ With Crux® VCF System
NCT02394912
TERMINATED
NA
Endotoxins and Cytokines Removal During Continuous Hemofiltration With oXiris™
NCT03426943
COMPLETED
NA
A Controlled, In Vivo, Pilot Study to Assess the Recovery and Survival of Radiolabeled Autologous INTERCEPT Treated 7-Day Stored Apheresis Platelet Components in 35% Plasma and 65% InterSol and 7-Day Stored Apheresis Platelet Components in 100% Plasma
NCT02310412
COMPLETED
PHASE2
Risk Factors for Thrombosis in Children With Central Venous Lines
NCT04117217
COMPLETED
VenaTech Convertible Vena Cava Filter U.S. Multi-Center Clinical Trial
NCT01112917
COMPLETED
NA
Comparison of Distal and Proximal Radial Artery Patency Following Coronary Catheterization, A Real Look at a Special Community
NCT07138170
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
NA
Feasibility and Safety of Total Percutaneous Closure of Femoral Arterial Access Sites in the Veno-arterial ECMO Patients
NCT04689451
UNKNOWN
Functional Evaluation of Two Types of Totally Implanted Venous Ports
NCT00484848
COMPLETED
NA
Evaluation of Peripheral EOS for the Peripheral Embolization Treatment to Rapidly OccluDe Venous or Arterial BleEding
NCT02033954
UNKNOWN
Veinplicity for Improved Venous Access: The VIVA Trial
NCT03752632
TERMINATED
PHASE3
Improved Outcomes With Pre-Procedure Shockwave IVL of Common Femoral Artery Access Site Prior to Large Bore Access and Pre-Closure
NCT07205068
RECRUITING
NA
AccuCath™ Intravenous (IV) Device Used by Vascular Access Team (VAT)
NCT01937195
COMPLETED
NA