Feeding Tube Complication Clinical Trial
— SSAOfficial title:
Single Site, Prospective, Phase I Study, Safety and Efficacy of Enteral Feeding Tube Stoma Site Accessory
Verified date | April 2024 |
Source | The Cleveland Clinic |
Contact | n/a |
Is FDA regulated | No |
Health authority | |
Study type | Interventional |
The purpose of the study is to collect safety and efficacy data on the performance of the study stoma site accessory when used to prevent abdominal wall leakage for patients with a long term feeding tube. This accessory has been developed by the Cleveland Clinic and will be used for the first time in human subjects according to the labeled indication for clinical use in accordance with the Manufacturer's Instructions for Use based on other similar, FDA approved gastrostomy and jejunostomy enteral feeding tube accessory components. After providing informed consent, eligible patients will receive a study stoma site accessory during a feeding tube replacement procedure the patient is scheduled to have as a standard of care procedure.
Status | Active, not recruiting |
Enrollment | 10 |
Est. completion date | December 31, 2024 |
Est. primary completion date | June 15, 2024 |
Accepts healthy volunteers | No |
Gender | All |
Age group | 22 Years to 85 Years |
Eligibility | Inclusion Criteria: In order to be eligible to participate in this study, an individual must meet all of the following criteria: - Male or female, aged =22 and =85 Note: Because the study accessory is designed for adult use participants <22 years of age are excluded but will be eligible for future trials, if applicable - Ability to understand and the willingness to sign a written informed consent document - Patients with existing gastrostomy and jejunostomy enteral feeding tubes, placed = 3 months, undergoing replacement of feeding tube inpatient or outpatient - Willing to adhere to placement of study stoma site accessory and ability to take oral temperature at specified times - Stated willingness to comply with all study procedures and availability for the duration of the study - Willing to adhere to removal of study stoma site accessory at month 6 Exclusion Criteria: An individual who meets any of the following criteria will be excluded from participation in this study: - Patient requires general anesthesia in an OR for tube changes - Current use of steroids (any dose) daily = 3 months including, but not limited to: prednisone, prednisolone, methylprednisolone, cyclosporine - Current use of Immunosuppressants including, but not limited to: azathioprine, mycophenolate. - BMI = 40 - Non-English speaking patients - Pregnant Women - Known allergic reactions to components of the study stoma site accessory [Medical Grade Silicone] - Treatment with another investigational drug or device within 6 months of screening/baseline - Uncontrolled illness, recent open abdominal surgery or social situations that in the opinion of the investigative team would limit compliance with study requirements, including, but not limited to: - Ongoing or active infection - Psychiatric illness - Unable to self-report - Not ambulatory and incapable of carrying out all self-care - Unsuccessful stoma site study accessory placement at time of initial replacement procedure |
Country | Name | City | State |
---|---|---|---|
United States | Cleveland Clinic | Cleveland | Ohio |
Lead Sponsor | Collaborator |
---|---|
Eric Yudelevich |
United States,
ASGE Technology Committee; Kwon RS, Banerjee S, Desilets D, Diehl DL, Farraye FA, Kaul V, Mamula P, Pedrosa MC, Rodriguez SA, Varadarajulu S, Song LM, Tierney WM. Enteral nutrition access devices. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Aug;72(2):236-48. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.02.008. Epub 2010 Jun 11. — View Citation
Blumenstein I, Shastri YM, Stein J. Gastroenteric tube feeding: techniques, problems and solutions. World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Jul 14;20(26):8505-24. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i26.8505. — View Citation
DeLegge RL, DeLegge MH. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy evaluation of device materials: are we "failsafe"? Nutr Clin Pract. 2005 Dec;20(6):613-7. doi: 10.1177/0115426505020006613. — View Citation
Gramlich L, Hurt RT, Jin J, Mundi MS. Home Enteral Nutrition: Towards a Standard of Care. Nutrients. 2018 Aug 4;10(8):1020. doi: 10.3390/nu10081020. — View Citation
Green SM, Townsend K, Jarrett N, Fader M. The experiences and support needs of people living at home with an enteral tube: a qualitative interview study. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2019 Oct;32(5):646-658. doi: 10.1111/jhn.12656. Epub 2019 Apr 21. — View Citation
Hall BT, Englehart MS, Blaseg K, Wessel K, Stawicki SP, Evans DC. Implementation of a dietitian-led enteral nutrition support clinic results in quality improvement, reduced readmissions, and cost savings. Nutr Clin Pract. 2014 Oct;29(5):649-55. doi: 10.1177/0884533614538285. — View Citation
Malik F, Baig SN, Patel B, Gonzalez M, Nfonoyim J. Unusual complication of a percutaneous gastrostomy tube. J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect. 2019 Sep 5;9(4):325-326. doi: 10.1080/20009666.2019.1650410. eCollection 2019. — View Citation
Mundi MS, Pattinson A, McMahon MT, Davidson J, Hurt RT. Prevalence of Home Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition in the United States. Nutr Clin Pract. 2017 Dec;32(6):799-805. doi: 10.1177/0884533617718472. Epub 2017 Jul 17. — View Citation
Ojo O, Keaveney E, Wang XH, Feng P. The Effect of Enteral Tube Feeding on Patients' Health-Related Quality of Life: A Systematic Review. Nutrients. 2019 May 10;11(5):1046. doi: 10.3390/nu11051046. — View Citation
Potack JZ, Chokhavatia S. Complications of and controversies associated with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: report of a case and literature review. Medscape J Med. 2008 Jun 17;10(6):142. — View Citation
Type | Measure | Description | Time frame | Safety issue |
---|---|---|---|---|
Primary | Successful Accessory placement | Using the accessory placement date as the baseline, the % of patients with study accessory still in place will be measured at week 2.
The measurement tool is a question the patients will be asked to determine "Is the device still in place?" The response is captured in a database with the answers "Yes" or "No." |
Week 2 Visit | |
Primary | Successful Accessory placement | Using the accessory placement date as the baseline, the % of patients with study accessory still in place will be measured at week 4.
The measurement tool is a question the patients will be asked to determine "Is the device still in place?" The response is captured in a database with the answers "Yes" or "No." |
Week 4 Phone call | |
Primary | Successful Accessory placement | Using the accessory placement date as the baseline, the % of patients with study accessory still in place will be measured at week 6.
The measurement tool is a question the patients will be asked to determine "Is the device still in place?" The response is captured in a database with the answers "Yes" or "No." |
Week 6 Phone call | |
Primary | Successful Accessory placement | Using the accessory placement date as the baseline, the % of patients with study accessory still in place will be measured at month 3.
The measurement tool is a question the patients will be asked to determine "Is the device still in place?" The response is captured in a database with the answers "Yes" or "No." |
Month 3 Visit | |
Primary | Successful Accessory placement | Using the accessory placement date as the baseline, the % of patients with study accessory still in place will be measured at month 4.
The measurement tool is a question the patients will be asked to determine "Is the device still in place?" The response is captured in a database with the answers "Yes" or "No." |
Month 4 Visit | |
Primary | Successful Accessory placement | Using the accessory placement date as the baseline, the % of patients with study accessory still in place will be measured at month 6.
The measurement tool is a question the patients will be asked to determine "Is the device still in place?" The response is captured in a database with the answers "Yes" or "No." |
Month 6 Visit | |
Primary | Number of feeding tube complications for each patient with a study accessory | Minor complications associated with feeding tubes as defined by clinical assessment of treating physician at week baseline. Total number of complications will be reported per patient at each time point. | Baseline | |
Primary | Number of feeding tube complications for each patient with a study accessory | Minor complications associated with feeding tubes as defined by clinical assessment of treating physician at week 2. Total number of new complications will be reported per patient at each time point. | Week 2 Visit | |
Primary | Number of feeding tube complications for each patient with a study accessory | Minor complications associated with feeding tubes as defined by clinical assessment of treating physician at month 3. Total number of new complications will be reported per patient at each time point. | Month 3 Visit | |
Primary | Number of feeding tube complications for each patient with a study accessory | Minor complications associated with feeding tubes as defined by clinical assessment of treating physician at early termination. Total number of new complications will be reported per patient at each time point. | Early termination (during the first 6 months) | |
Primary | Number of feeding tube complications for each patient with a study accessory | Minor complications associated with feeding tubes as defined by clinical assessment of treating physician at month 6. Total number of new complications will be reported per patient at each time point. | Month 6 Visit | |
Secondary | Quality of Life Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) 10 questionnaire | Using the PROMIS 10 questionnaire we will measure change using the physical and mental health global T scores for patient quality of life after intervention as self-reported by participants. Physical T score ranges 16.2 as the lowest to 67.7 as the highest and mental T score ranges from 21.2 to 67.6. A higher score at month 6 is indication of improvement. | Baseline | |
Secondary | Quality of Life PROMIS 10 questionnaire | Using the PROMIS 10 questionnaire we will measure change using the global physical and global mental health T scores for patient quality of life after intervention as self-reported by participants. Physical T score ranges 16.2 as the lowest to 67.7 as the highest and mental T score ranges from 21.2 to 67.6. A higher score at termination is indication of improvement. | Early termination (during the first 6 months) | |
Secondary | Quality of Life PROMIS 10 questionnaire | Using the PROMIS 10 questionnaire we will measure change using the global physical and global mental health T scores for patient quality of life after intervention as self-reported by participants. Physical T score ranges 16.2 as the lowest to 67.7 as the highest and mental T score ranges from 21.2 to 67.6. A higher score at month 6 is indication of improvement. | Month 6 Visit | |
Secondary | Characteristics of Pain and Leakage | Using a novel Characteristics of Pain and Leakage questionnaire with 4 unique quality of life questions, investigators will collect patient self reported data at baseline.
Each question will have a score from one to 5 and the scores will be summed to a total score. A higher score corresponds to a higher quality of life. |
Baseline | |
Secondary | Characteristics of Pain and Leakage | Using a novel Characteristics of Pain and Leakage questionnaire with 4 unique quality of life questions, investigators will collect patient self reported data at week 2.
Each question will have a score from one to 5 and the scores will be summed to a total score. A higher score corresponds to a higher quality of life. |
Week 2 Visit | |
Secondary | Characteristics of Pain and Leakage | Using a novel Characteristics of Pain and Leakage questionnaire with 4 unique quality of life questions, investigators will collect patient self reported data at week 4.
Each question will have a score from one to 5 and the scores will be summed to a total score. A higher score corresponds to a higher quality of life. |
Week 4 Phone Call | |
Secondary | Characteristics of Pain and Leakage | Using a novel Characteristics of Pain and Leakage questionnaire with 4 unique quality of life questions, investigators will collect patient self reported data at week 6.
Each question will have a score from one to 5 and the scores will be summed to a total score. A higher score corresponds to a higher quality of life. |
Week 6 Phone Call | |
Secondary | Characteristics of Pain and Leakage | Using a novel Characteristics of Pain and Leakage questionnaire with 4 unique quality of life questions, investigators will collect patient self reported data at early termination.
Each question will have a score from one to 5 and the scores will be summed to a total score. A higher score corresponds to a higher quality of life. |
Early Termination (during the first 6 months) | |
Secondary | Characteristics of Pain and Leakage | Using a novel Characteristics of Pain and Leakage questionnaire with 4 unique quality of life questions, investigators will collect patient self reported data at month 3.
Each question will have a score from one to 5 and the scores will be summed to a total score. A higher score corresponds to a higher quality of life. |
Month 3 Visit | |
Secondary | Characteristics of Pain and Leakage Questionnaire | Using a novel Characteristics of Pain and Leakage questionnaire with 4 unique quality of life questions, investigators will collect patient self reported data at month 4.
Each question will have a score from one to 5 and the scores will be summed to a total score. A higher score corresponds to a higher quality of life. |
Month 4 Visit | |
Secondary | Characteristics of Pain and Leakage | Using a novel Characteristics of Pain and Leakage questionnaire with 4 unique quality of life questions, investigators will collect patient self reported data at month 6.
Each question will have a score from one to 5 and the scores will be summed to a total score. A higher score corresponds to a higher quality of life. |
Month 6 Visit |
Status | Clinical Trial | Phase | |
---|---|---|---|
Withdrawn |
NCT05557396 -
Internal Tube Length of the Nasogastric Tube
|
N/A | |
Not yet recruiting |
NCT04627844 -
Time to Feeding After PEG Tube Placement.
|
Phase 4 | |
Recruiting |
NCT05694299 -
Nasal Bridle Versus Nasal Patch for Fixation of Nasoenteral Feeding Tubes
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT05653843 -
MANTIS Endoscopic Clipping Study
|
||
Completed |
NCT04621734 -
Retention of Nasoenteric Feeding Tubes in Pediatric Patients Using a Nasal Bridle
|
N/A |