Long Term Enteral Tube Feeding Clinical Trial
Official title:
A Single-Center, Investigator-Initiated, Randomized, Pilot Study Comparing Cost Effectiveness Two Commercially Available Gastric Feeding Tubes (Capsule Dome G-Tube Versus Balloon Bolus Feeding Tube).
| Verified date | March 2024 |
| Source | Ohio State University |
| Contact | n/a |
| Is FDA regulated | No |
| Health authority | |
| Study type | Interventional |
This document is a protocol for a human research study. This study is to be conducted according to US and international standards of Good Clinical Practice (International Conference on Harmonization ICHE6, R2), the Code of Federal Regulations Title 21 parts 803 and 812, and other applicable government regulations and Institutional research policies and procedures. The purpose of the study is to compare the cost effectiveness and tolerability of standard of care gastrostomy tubes to newer capsule dome gastrostomy tubes. The newer tubes are significantly more expensive, therefore the aims of this study will be to determine economic feasibility of going to the new model. Data are lacking on the newer g-tubes in terms of longevity and cost-effectiveness
| Status | Terminated |
| Enrollment | 7 |
| Est. completion date | December 30, 2023 |
| Est. primary completion date | December 30, 2023 |
| Accepts healthy volunteers | No |
| Gender | All |
| Age group | 18 Years to 75 Years |
| Eligibility | Inclusion Criteria: 1. Signed an IRB-approved informed consent form for the study. 2. Adults (18-75 years of age) 3. Requirement of long term enteral tube feeding (> to 12 months) and are due for a change of their initial or prior replacement bolus Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube. 4. Ability to consent for the procedure and study. 5. Subjects must be able to communicate in english via telephone and understand the assessment checklists. 6. Expected to survive 12 months. Exclusion Criteria The following subjects will not be eligible for inclusion in the study: 1. Enteral feeding is not necessary for at least 12 months, 2. A medical condition that makes it impossible for them to communicate via telephone 3. Subjects requiring feeding into the jejunum via a combined gastroenterostomy-jejunostomy tube 4. Subjects who require endoscopic replacement of their current gastrostomy tube. 5. Impaired cognition, inability to provide assessment feedback by telephone. 6. Subjects not expected to survive > 12 months |
| Country | Name | City | State |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States | Endoscopy Doan | Columbus | Ohio |
| Lead Sponsor | Collaborator |
|---|---|
| Ohio State University |
United States,
| Type | Measure | Description | Time frame | Safety issue |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Comparison of PEG tube device longevity | Time (metric is looking at Q3 month follow-up for one year) | Up to twelve months | |
| Secondary | Measure the cost difference of two PEG tube devices | Metrics evaluated using a cost-effectiveness analysis | Up to twelve months |