Assessment of the Echoendoscope for Clinical Performance

Endosonography Clinical Trial

Official title:

Prospective Comparison of Two EUS System for Clinical Performance

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT04161950
• Other study ID #: 2017YFC0109804
• Status: Completed
• Start date: November 1, 2019
• Est. completion date: February 22, 2022

Study information

• Verified date: March 2022
• Source: Peking Union Medical College Hospital
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Observational

Clinical Trial Summary

The primary objective for this study is to compare the safety and validity of two endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) systems (GF-UE260-ME2 and EG-UR5-S50) used for clinical performance and establish a relative EUS performance assessment system and clinical case data to provide support for the product performance improvement.

Description:

This research is a random, opening and parallel-controlled clinical test. Tested device model: The EG-UR5 ultrasonic endoscope manufactured by SonoSscope Medical Crop. That used with the HD-500 image processor, HDL-500X light source and S50Exp ultrasonic color doppler instrument .

Compared device model: The GF-UE260-ME2 ultrasonic endoscope manufactured by Olympus and its compatible light source, image processor and ultrasonic instrument.

To scientifically compare the clinical performances of the test model and the compared model, the enrolled objects would be randomly distributed to the tested group and the compared group to conducted the examination with the tested model and the compared model respectively.

EUS will be performed in the standard fashion by one of the experienced endosonographers in the unit. Once the EUS is complete, the procedure will be stopped and the echoendoscope withdrawn from the patient.

1. Check Points Providing optical images of the human upper gestrointesinal tract (including esophagus, stomach and duodenum) for observing, diagnosis and treatment, and for the ultrasonic check and diagnosis for the upper gastrointestinal tract and surrounding organs.

2. Test Items 1. Ultrasonic and endoscopic image quality assessment 2. Device controllability assessment 3. System safety assessment 4. System stability assessment

The data are recorded in the CRF, including patient information, clinical assessment for the usage of the endoscope and device operation, thus to perform a comprehensive assessment whether the safety and validity of this product can meet the clinical requirements.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Enrollment: 130
• Est. completion date: February 22, 2022
• Est. primary completion date: December 31, 2021
• Accepts healthy volunteers: No
• Gender: All
• Age group: 18 Years to 70 Years

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

1. The patients with clinical indication for the endoscopic ultrasonography examination or diagnosis;

2. Patients volunteering to participate in this study and sign the informed consent.

Exclusion Criteria:

1. Patients do not sign the informed consent.

2. Mental disorders and non-cooperated patient

3. Severe cardiopulmonary diseases (such as severe cardiac dysfunction, severe pulmonary dysfunction and severe arrhythmia)

4. Shock or other severe patient

5. Suspected or confirmed upper digestive tract perforation or perforation acute phase

6. Acute phase of gastric and esophageal chemical burns

7. Patients do not suitable to participate in this study.

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Endosonography

Intervention

Other:
• Assessment of the safety and validity of echoendoscope
Ultrasonic and endoscopic image quality assessment Device controllability assessment System safety assessment System stability assessment

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
China	Department of Gastroenterology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital	Beijing	Beijing

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Peking Union Medical College Hospital

Country where clinical trial is conducted

China, 

References & Publications (2)

Jenssen C, Alvarez-Sánchez MV, Napoléon B, Faiss S. Diagnostic endoscopic ultrasonography: assessment of safety and prevention of complications. World J Gastroenterol. 2012 Sep 14;18(34):4659-76. Review. — View Citation

Roubein LB. Endoscopic ultrasonography and the malignant esophageal stricture: implications and complications. Gastrointest Endosc. 1995 Jun;41(6):613-5. Review. — View Citation

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Ultrasonic Image Quality Assessment	Check Points for Ultrasonic Image Esophagus, stomach, cholecyst, bile duct, pancreas and portal vein system Ultrasonic image quality Assessment standards Assess the ultrasonic image quality of all judgment points according to the ranking degree: excellent, well, bad. Only the assessment of all organs are excellent, the ultrasonic image quality is excellent. If one or more than one assessments are good, the ultrasonic image quality is good. If one or more than one assessments are bad, the ultrasonic image quality is bad.; The comparison of the image qualities of the tested model and compared model is verified by the non-inferior validation method and the boundary is 10%, and the confidence interval rate differential is 95%.	up to 2 months
Primary	Endoscopic Image Quality Assessment	Check Points for endoscopic Image Esophagus, proximal stomach, stomach body,gastric angle,antrum and duodenal bulb.; Assess the ultrasonic image quality of all judgment points according to the ranking degree: excellent, well, bad. Only the assessment of all observed points are excellent, the endoscopic image quality is excellent. If one or more than one observation points are good, the endoscopic image quality is good. If one or more than one observation points are bad, the endoscopic image quality is bad.; The comparison of the image qualities of the tested model and compared model is verified by the non-inferior validation method and the boundary is 10%, and the confidence interval rate differential is 95%.	up to 2 months
Secondary	Device controllability Assessment	The good ration of the device controllability is computed to assess the performance of the ultrasonic endoscope and the target value is more than 98%.	up to 2 months
Secondary	System safety assessment	Judge the device safety according to the system safety adverse events and the target rate (the estimate value) of the events is 0.	up to 2 months
Secondary	System stability assessment	Judge the device stability according to the system stability adverse events and the target rate (the estimate value) of the events is less than 5%.	up to 2 months