First-day Versus Early Drain Removal Following PD: a Randomized Controlled Trial
NCT ID: NCT06468917
Last Updated: 2024-06-21
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.
RECRUITING
NA
224 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2024-06-01
2026-03-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
AIM we aim to compare postoperative surgical outcomes after PD in patients with low/medium risk for POPF (ISGPS risk class A-B-C), who undergo POD1 drains removal versus POD3 removal.
Primary aim: 1) grade B/C POPF; 2) post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH). Secondary aims: occurrence of fluid collection, sepsis, SSI, need for reintervention, length of stay, CD\>3, 90 days mortality, re-admission.
Study Design:
This is a randomized, controlled, open-label study. All patients will be randomized on POD1, using computer-generated randomization codes.
Group A: Drain removal on POD 1 (in case of POD 1 DFA\< 300 U/L) Group B: Drain removal on POD 3 (in case of POD 1 DFA\< 300 U/L)
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Randomized Trial of Early Versus Standard Drainage Removal After Pancreatic Resections
NCT00931554
Prophylactic Abdominal Drainage vs no Drainage After Distal Pancreatectomy
NCT06141044
Early Drain Removal Versus Standard Drain Management After Distal Pancreatectomy (Early-Dist)
NCT04609137
Early (4 Days) Versus Standard Drainage of the Abdominal Cavity After Pancreaticoduodenectomy
NCT01368094
he Safety Research of Timing of the Removal of Abdominal Drains After Pancreatic Surgery
NCT04892615
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Controversies on ID placement have emerged from both randomized and non-randomized clinical studies investigating its possible role in increasing POPF and postoperative morbidity as well as prolonged hospital stay. According to Conlon et al the presence of drains failed to reduce either the need for interventional radiologic drainage or surgical exploration for intraabdominal sepsis and was associated with the development of more intra-abdominal abscesses, collections, or fistulas. Some authors report significantly higher postoperative abdominal complications after late removal of ID. A prolonged period of drain insertion is associated with a higher rate of postoperative complications with increased hospital stay and costs, not to mention that dislocation of intra-abdominal drains is an early and frequent event after major pancreatic resection.
The optimal timing for drain removal after PD is still a subject of debate: most studies have shown that outcomes are best when ID are removed in postoperative day (POD) 3 when POPF is excluded (given a specific cut off for drain fluid amylase, DFA).
Even though many authors advocate early ID removal to prevent intra-abdominal infection or fistula, in clinical practice many surgeons may feel more comfortable to maintain IDs for a prolonged period (more than 3 days) even when criteria for POPF or other abdominal complications are not met.
In some studies correlation between drain fluid amylase (DFA) in POD1 after pancreatic resections and development of POPF has been examined, defining ideal cut-off points ranging between 5.000U/L and 90 U/l3-17-20-21 (depending on intraoperative risk stratification) that can be used to achieve the best timing for drain removal.
AIM In this non-inferiority study, we aim to compare postoperative surgical outcomes after PD in patients with low/medium risk for POPF (ISGPS risk class A-B-C), who undergo POD1 drains removal versus POD3 removal.
Primary aim: occurrence of one or more pancreas-specific complications, defined according to ISGPS as:1) grade B/C POPF; 2) post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH).
Secondary aims: occurrence of fluid collection, sepsis, SSI, need for reintervention, length of stay, CD\>3, 90 days mortality, re-admission.
Patients and Methods:
Study Design:
This is a randomized, controlled, open-label study. The Study will be registered in the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Registry.
All patients encountering inclusion criteria will be randomized on POD1, using computer-generated randomization codes.
Group A: Drain removal on POD 1 (in case of POD 1 DFA\< 300 U/L) Group B: Drain removal on POD 3 (in case of POD 1 DFA\< 300 U/L)
Operative technique and drains positioning:
Experienced pancreatic surgeons will be performing a standard pancreaticoduodenectomy pylorus-preserving and a Whipple procedure if lesion infiltrates the duodenum. After resection, anastomoses will be constructed on a single jejunal loop. Management of pancreatic stump consisting in single- or double-layer, end-to-side pancreatojejunostomy (PJ) with non-absorbable interrupted sutures. Given the low risk for pancreatic fistula, no externalized trans-anastomotic stent will be placed. End-to-side hepaticojejunostomy will be performed 20 cm distally to PJ with absorbable continuous or interrupted sutures, and end-to side duodenojejunostomy with absorbable interrupted sutures. Two perianastomotic open passive penrose (Easyflow) drains are placed at the end of the procedure close to biliary anastomosis and close to PJ anastomosis15.
In conclusion, we aim, through this randomized trial, to demonstrate that POD1 drains removal after PD is not inferior to POD3 removal in low and medium risk patients and, moreover, it could prevent delayed removal-related complications, helping to guide post-operative care and improve patient outcomes.
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.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
All patients encountering inclusion criteria will be randomized on POD1, using computer-generated randomization codes.
Group A: Drain removal on POD 1 (in case of POD 1 DFA\< 300 U/L) Group B: Drain removal on POD 3 (in case of POD 1 DFA\< 300 U/L)
PREVENTION
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Drain removal on POD 1
in case of POD 1 DFA\< 300 U/L
1st day removal of abdominal drain
once POPF is excluded in middle-low risk pancreatic resection, abdominal drains can be removed
Drain removal on POD 3
in case of POD 1 DFA\< 300 U/L
1st day removal of abdominal drain
once POPF is excluded in middle-low risk pancreatic resection, abdominal drains can be removed
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
1st day removal of abdominal drain
once POPF is excluded in middle-low risk pancreatic resection, abdominal drains can be removed
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Intraoperative low to moderate risk for POPF (ISGPS class A-B-C)
* POD 1 DFA \< 300U/L
Exclusion Criteria
* Patients with high risk of developing pancreatic fistula (ISGPS class D)
* Intraoperative positioning of external or internal pancreatic stent
* POD 1 DFA ≥300
* Sinister appearance of drain effluent (defined as dark brown to clear "spring water" fluid that looks like pancreatic juice contaminated) as mentioned in literature3-22
* Early post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage
* Intraoperative conditions different from POPF risk, requiring prolonged intrabdominal drains
* Previous bilio/pancreatic surgery
* Allergy to drain materials
* Significant coagulation disorders
* Patients unable to provide informed consent.
* Clinical suspect of another surgery-related fistula different than POPF
18 Years
85 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
University of Padova
OTHER
Casa di Cura Dott. Pederzoli
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Isabella Frigerio
MD PhD
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
isabella frigerio, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Casa di Cura Dott. Pederzoli
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Cdcpederzoli
Peschiera del Garda, Verona, Italy
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
Cdcpederzoli
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.