Clinical Trials Logo

Filter by:
NCT ID: NCT05335213 Recruiting - Liver Cirrhosis Clinical Trials

Urinary Tract Infections in Cirrhosis

Start date: January 5, 2022
Phase:
Study type: Observational [Patient Registry]

Evaluate the prevalence and types of urinary tract infections, the features of the gut and urinary tract microbiota in cirrhosis, to assess its importance in the development of complications and outcomes of cirrhosis.

NCT ID: NCT05334693 Recruiting - Clinical trials for Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Expanded Haploidentical Natural Killer Cells as Consolidation Strategy for Children/Young Adults With AML

Start date: November 1, 2021
Phase: Phase 1/Phase 2
Study type: Interventional

The purpose of this study is to estimate the efficacy of immunotherapy with ex vivo expanded haploidentical NK cells as consolidation therapy for children/young adults with intermediate risk AML.

NCT ID: NCT05333302 Recruiting - Clinical trials for B-cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

Pilot CAR-T Cells Therapy for Children/Young Adults With CD19+ R/R Leukemia/Lymphoma

Start date: October 26, 2020
Phase: Phase 1
Study type: Interventional

The purpose of this study is to estimate the safety and the efficacy of CAR- T cells immunotherapy for children/young adults with relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma.

NCT ID: NCT05306119 Active, not recruiting - Low Back Pain Clinical Trials

Developing a Method of Rehabilitation for Patients After Myocardial Revascularization

Start date: July 1, 2021
Phase: N/A
Study type: Interventional

As a result, will be developed: a list of criteria for functional impairment in patients after myocardial revascularization combined with low back pain; a list of criteria for disabilities in patients after myocardial revascularization combined with low back pain; method of medical rehabilitation of patients after myocardial revascularization combined with low back pain; and criteria for evaluating its effectiveness.

NCT ID: NCT05272293 Recruiting - Clinical trials for Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Immunotherapy With ex Vivo Expanded Haploidentical Natural Killer Cells for Children/Young Adults With AML

Start date: November 1, 2021
Phase: Phase 1/Phase 2
Study type: Interventional

The purpose of this study is to estimate the efficacy of immunotherapy with ex vivo expanded haploidentical NK cells for children/young adults with primary high risk or refractory AML and relapsed AML.

NCT ID: NCT05218616 Not yet recruiting - Bioequivalence Clinical Trials

The Bioequivalence Study of Two Sunitinib Products in Capsules 50 mg in Healthy Volunteers Under Fasting Conditions

Start date: January 21, 2022
Phase: Phase 1
Study type: Interventional

The study is designed in accordance with the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) regulatory guidelines, with the aim of characterizing the bioavailability of two pharmaceutical products of sunitinib in healthy adult volunteers. Within the clinical portion of the study, each volunteer will receive a single oral dose of the test and the reference product in compliance with the generated randomization code.

NCT ID: NCT05209711 Recruiting - Nerve Block Clinical Trials

Femoral Nerve Blockade 7.5 ml of 1% Lidocaine: US Guidance Versus US Guidance With Electrical Stimulation of Peripheral Nerves (Influence of the Femoral Nerve Blockade on the Effectiveness of Small Doses of Local Anesthetic.). (EPBwEPN)

Start date: February 1, 2022
Phase: N/A
Study type: Interventional

In modern anesthesiology, peripheral nerve blocks are performed using ultrasound control and electrical stimulation of peripheral nerves (PEN), or only ultrasound control or only EPN. The most effective methods are with the use of ultrasound control. Until now, the effectiveness of the femoral nerve blockade, performed only under ultrasound control without EPN, in comparison with the blockade of the femoral nerve performed under ultrasound control with EPN, has not been established. There is no data on how the effectiveness of the blockade of the femoral nerve with small doses of lidocaine is influenced by the method of performing the blockade: under ultrasound control versus ultrasound control with electrostimulation of the nerve. Research hypothesis: the blockade of the femoral nerve (7.5 ml 1%lidocaine -Minimum Effective Dose - previously established ) performed only under ultrasound control has the same effectiveness as the blockade performed under the ultrasound control with EPN.

NCT ID: NCT05209490 Recruiting - Nerve Block Clinical Trials

Ultrasound-guided Femoral Nerve Block Without Electrical Stimulation of Peripheral Nerves

USvsUSEPN
Start date: February 1, 2022
Phase: N/A
Study type: Interventional

There is little work comparing the effectiveness of a femoral nerve block performed only under US guidance or US plus electrical stimulation of the peripheral nerve (EPN). The authors have shown the same effectiveness of these techniques(1).But the effectiveness of the blockade of the femoral nerve (complete blockade) performed in different ways turned out to be low valve: 71.7% for ultrasound in combination with electrical stimulation versus 69% for only ultrasound guidance. Research hypothesis: the blockade of the femoral nerve performed only under ultrasound control has the same effectiveness as the blockade performed under the ultrasound control with EPN.

NCT ID: NCT05205473 Recruiting - Nerve Block Clinical Trials

Sciatic Nerve Blockade by Subgluteal Access 12.5 ml of 1% Lidocaine: US Guidance Versus US Guidance With Electrical Stimulation of Peripheral Nerves (Influence of the Sciatic Nerve Blockade on the Effectiveness of Small Doses of Local Anesthetic.).

EPBwEPN
Start date: February 1, 2022
Phase: N/A
Study type: Interventional

In modern anesthesiology, peripheral nerve blocks are performed using ultrasound control and electrical stimulation of peripheral nerves (PEN), or only ultrasound control or only EPN. The most effective methods are with the use of ultrasound control. Until now, the effectiveness of the sciatic nerve blockade by the subgluteal approach, performed only under ultrasound control without EPN, in comparison with the blockade of the sciatic nerve performed under ultrasound control with EPN, has not been established. There is no data on how the effectiveness of the blockade of the sciatic nerve with small doses of lidocaine is influenced by the method of performing the blockade: under ultrasound control versus ultrasound control with electrostimulation of the nerve. Research hypothesis: the blockade of the sciatic nerve by the subgluteal approach (12.5 ml 1%lidocaine -Minimum Effective Dose - previously established ) performed only under ultrasound control has the same effectiveness as the blockade performed under the ultrasound control with EPN.

NCT ID: NCT05184465 Completed - Anesthesia, Spinal Clinical Trials

Comparison of the Efficacy of 0.5% Bupivacaine, 0.5% Levobupivacaine, and 0.5% Hyperbaric Bupivacaine

BvsLBvsHB
Start date: December 18, 2017
Phase: N/A
Study type: Interventional

About 15 million spinal anesthesia procedures are performed worldwide each year. In the daily practice of the anesthesiologist for intrathecal use there are various local anesthetics such as bupivacaine, hyperbaric solution of bupivacaine, ropivacaine and levobupivacaine. From 1946 to 2017, only 16 studies comparing the clinical efficacy of isobaric and hyperbaric bupivacaine in nonpregnant patients have been conducted according to various databases. The small sample size and high heterogeneity of these results suggest that all results should be treated with caution. And, there is no conclusive evidence in favor of isobaric or hyperbaric bupivacaine regarding efficacy or side effects in the general surgical population. The literature describes such advantages of levobupivacaine as less cardiotoxicity, longer period of analgesia, more pronounced activity against sensory fibers than against motor fibers. In some studies it has been shown that levobupivacaine is equal to isobaric bupivacaine in efficacy. The efficacy of hyperbaric levobupivacaine equivalent to hyperbaric bupivacaine when administered intrathecally has also been shown on volunteers. However, in the literature there are different data on clinical efficacy of levobupivakin in comparison with ropivacaine and levobupivacaine. So during operations on extremities out of 20 patients surgical anesthesia developed in 18 patients. Fattorini F. et al. D in their study stated the same effectiveness of bupivacaine and levobupivacaine, but when using levobupivacaine in one patient general anesthesia was used due to insufficient spinal anesthesia. Other studies also reported similar efficacy of the two drugs, but surgical satisfaction with intraoperative anesthesia was 92.9% for bupivacaine and 83.9% for levobupivacaine for knee arthoroscopy. In their study, P Gautier et al. noted significantly lower efficacy of levobupivacaine in caesarean section compared to bupivacaine and ropivacaine for intrathecal use: 80% vs. 90% and 87%, respectively. According to Heng Sia et al. there is no clear evidence of the advantage of hyperbaric bupivacaine over isobaric bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia for cesarean section. The authors also noted that adequate randomized clinical trials with clear definitions, criteria and methodology for evaluating the transition to general anesthesia, requirements for additional analgesia, nausea, vomiting and sensory testing are needed. There is no clear practical guide to help anesthesiologists make informed decisions about the use of some form of intrathecal bupivacaine in non-cesarean surgery. Carefully designed, adequately conducted studies can provide further results that will contribute to sound clinical decision making. Given the above, the aim of the study is to compare the effectiveness of spinal anesthesia (SA) performed with 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine solution, 0.5% levobupivacaine solution and 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine solution in equivalent volumes in lower limb surgeries.