Ureter Injury Clinical Trial
— UPOfficial title:
An Open-Label Study of Two Different Doses of 3,3'-Dioxo-2,2'-Bisindolylidene-5,5'-Disulfonate Disodium 0.8% Solution When Used as an Aid for Ureteral Patency
Verified date | November 2022 |
Source | Prove pharm |
Contact | n/a |
Is FDA regulated | No |
Health authority | |
Study type | Interventional |
To determine whether the use of 3,3'-Dioxo-2,2'-Bisindolylidene-5,5'-Disulfonate Disodium 0.8% Solution for injection provides a visualization advantage compared to saline when used as an aid in the determination of ureteral patency
Status | Completed |
Enrollment | 121 |
Est. completion date | June 3, 2021 |
Est. primary completion date | June 3, 2021 |
Accepts healthy volunteers | No |
Gender | All |
Age group | 18 Years to 85 Years |
Eligibility | Inclusion Criteria: - Subjects between = 18 and = 85 years old. - Subjects who signed written, IRB approved, informed consent form. - Subjects scheduled for urological or gynecological surgical procedures in which the patency of the ureter must be assessed by the surgeon during the procedure Exclusion Criteria: - Subjects with stage 4 or 5 Chronic Kidney Failure as evidenced by a GFR <30 mL/min/1.73m2 (using the MDRD) or need for dialysis in the near future, or having only 1 kidney. - Subjects with known severe hypersensitivity reactions to IC or other dyes including contrast agents. - Known history of drug or alcohol abuse within 6 months prior to the time of screening visit. - Subjects, as assessed by the Investigator, with conditions/concomitant diseases precluding their safe participation in this study (e.g. major systemic diseases). - Unable to meet specific protocol requirements (e.g., scheduled visits) or subject is uncooperative or has a condition that could lead to non-compliance with the study procedures. - Subject is the Investigator or any Sub-Investigator, research assistant, pharmacist, study coordinator, other staff or relative thereof directly involved in the conduct of the protocol; - Subjects with life expectancy < 6 months; - Requirement for concomitant treatment that could bias primary evaluation. - Subjects who are pregnant or breast-feeding. |
Country | Name | City | State |
---|---|---|---|
United States | Adult and Pediatric Urology | Omaha | Nebraska |
Lead Sponsor | Collaborator |
---|---|
Prove pharm |
United States,
Type | Measure | Description | Time frame | Safety issue |
---|---|---|---|---|
Other | Surgeon Urine Jet Conspicuity Score | The urine jet conspicuity score provided by the surgeon as assessed by the following 5-point ordinal scale.
= No jet observed = Weak jet, little color contrast = Color contrast or significant jet flow = Strong jet flow with good color contrast = Strong jet flow with striking contrast in color |
10 Minutes | |
Other | Concordance of Conspicuity Scores | Concordance of conspicuity scores between the surgeons' assessments and the blinded central reviewer assessments. If the difference between raters in conspicuity score was within ±1 (ie, the difference ranged from 1 to +1, inclusive), the scores were considered to agree.
The urine jet conspicuity score as assessed by the following 5-point ordinal scale. = No jet observed = Weak jet, little color contrast = Color contrast or significant jet flow = Strong jet flow with good color contrast = Strong jet flow with striking contrast in color |
10 Min | |
Other | Conspicuity Score Difference Between the Indigo Carmine High Dose and Indigo Carmine Low Dose by Central Review Process | Exploratory analysis of the urine jet conspicuity score difference between the indigo carmine high dose and indigo carmine low dose by central review Process
The urine jet conspicuity score provided by the blinded central review process as assessed by the following 5-point ordinal scale. = No jet observed = Weak jet, little color contrast = Color contrast or significant jet flow = Strong jet flow with good color contrast = Strong jet flow with striking contrast in color |
10 minutes | |
Other | Conspicuity Score Difference Between the Indigo Carmine High Dose and Indigo Carmine Low Dose as Assessed by Surgeons Who Were Blinded to the Dose of Indigo Carmine | Exploratory analysis of conspicuity score difference between the indigo carmine high dose and indigo carmine low dose as assessed by surgeons who were blinded to the dose of indigo carmine
The urine jet conspicuity score as assessed by the following 5-point ordinal scale. = No jet observed = Weak jet, little color contrast = Color contrast or significant jet flow = Strong jet flow with good color contrast = Strong jet flow with striking contrast in color |
10 Minutes | |
Primary | Urine Jet Conspicuity Score | The urine jet conspicuity score provided by the blinded central review process as assessed by the following 5-point ordinal scale.
= No jet observed = Weak jet, little color contrast = Color contrast or significant jet flow = Strong jet flow with good color contrast = Strong jet flow with striking contrast in color |
10 minutes | |
Secondary | Percentage of Responders | A subject was a responder when there was =1-point improvement in the urine jet conspicuity scores following the indigo carmine versus saline treatment (indigo carmine - saline =1) and the conspicuity score following the indigo carmine treatment was 3, 4, or 5. The responder criteria were assessed separately for each ureter for each subject based on the blinded central reviewer's conspicuity score. | 10 Minutes | |
Secondary | Physician Satisfaction Agreement Scale | After the completion of the procedure, the surgeon rated the experience of using indigo carmine for each subject using the 5-point PSAS, in which:
"Compared to the use of saline treatment, my ability to assess ureteral patency was improved after the addition of indigo carmine." = Strongly Agree = Agree = Neither Agree nor Disagree = Disagree = Strongly Disagree The surgeon was considered satisfied with the indigo carmine treatment if his/her rating was either a 1 (strongly agree) or a 2 (agree); otherwise, the surgeon was considered unsatisfied with the indigo carmine treatment. |
10 Minutes | |
Secondary | Time to Visualization | Time to visualization (minutes) of blue color in the ureteral jets flow following indigo carmine treatment | 10 Minutes |
Status | Clinical Trial | Phase | |
---|---|---|---|
Recruiting |
NCT05640115 -
Obstruction of Malignancy: Percutaneous Renal vs Endoscopic Stent
|
Early Phase 1 | |
Recruiting |
NCT06054880 -
Indigotindisulfonate Sodium Injection, USP as an Aid in the Determination of Ureteral Patency
|
Phase 4 | |
Completed |
NCT03937505 -
A Safety and Efficacy Study of IS-001 Injection in Patients Undergoing Robotic Hysterectomy
|
Phase 2 | |
Not yet recruiting |
NCT06448143 -
Indigotindisulfonate Sodium Injection, USP as an Aid in the Determination of Ureteral Patency in Pediatric Patients
|
Phase 3 | |
Completed |
NCT05769257 -
A Safety and Feasibility Study of IS-001 Injection in Patients Undergoing Robotic Colorectal Surgery
|
Phase 2 | |
Recruiting |
NCT06278753 -
Comparison of Standard Cystoscopy With Carbon Dioxide Cystoscopy
|
||
Recruiting |
NCT05954767 -
IS-001 Injection in Patients Undergoing Robotic-Assisted Gynecological Surgery
|
Phase 3 | |
Recruiting |
NCT06085183 -
Indigotindisulfonate Sodium Injection, USP as an Aid in the Determination of Ureteral Patency in Patient's With Renal Impairment
|
Phase 4 | |
Completed |
NCT03387410 -
Ureter Identification With IRDye 800BK
|
Phase 1/Phase 2 |