StenosisPhase 4NCT00318435
Fluency Stent-Graft Versus Luminex Stent for Angioplasty of Recurrent Stenosis of the Cephalic Arch in Autogenous Arteriovenous (AV) Access for Hemodialysis
A Phase 4 study testing Stent or stent-graft deployment in people with Stenosis, run by Shaare Zedek Medical Center at 1 site in Israel.
Trial summary
The type of hemodialysis access and preservation of this access greatly influences the quality of life and survival of patients undergoing hemodialysis. The Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (K/DOQI) guidelines for vascular access recommend the primary placement of native or autogenous hemodialysis fistulas… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 15 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Stenosis
- What is being tested?
- Stent or stent-graft deployment
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- How many people
- 50 participants
- Where
- 1 siteIsrael
- Study dates
- May 2006to Aug 2006
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 15 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients included in this study would be presented for intervention after observation in the Vascular Access Unit for one of the following:
- the recurrent cephalic arch stenosis identified on periodic duplex scanning, performed by one of the surgeons from the Vascular Access Unit;
- reduction of flow rate of more than 20% from baseline access flow rate;
- dynamic venous pressures exceeded threshold levels three consecutive times; or
- clinical signs (arm swelling, pulsatile fistula, prolonged bleeding from puncture sites) suggesting fistula dysfunction in a patient with previously treated cephalic arch stenosis.
Who cannot join
None listed.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
The type of hemodialysis access and preservation of this access greatly influences the quality of life and survival of patients undergoing hemodialysis. The Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (K/DOQI) guidelines for vascular access recommend the primary placement of native or autogenous hemodialysis fistulas in preference to polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) grafts and central venous catheters because the former form of access has fewer complications and a longer durability. However, autogenous hemodialysis fistulas, like polytetrafluoroethylene grafts, are also subject to dysfunction and eventual failure. Endovascular angioplasty has become an accepted alternative treatment to surgical revision for hemodialysis access-related venous stenoses and occlusions. However, the patency rates in the follow-up period are low because of the high frequency of restenosis due to intimal hyperplasia. Since 1988, noncovered stents have been used to improve fistula patency. In the central veins, bare stents demonstrate better patency rates than percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) alone. Neointimal hyperplasia is the major reason for restenosis following stent placement. The cephalic vein forms the outflow conduit for radiocephalic and brachiocephalic autogenous fistulas. It has recently been suggested that a focal area of the cephalic vein is prone to developing hemodynamically significant stenosis, in what is now termed the cephalic arch. This is the perpendicular portion of the cephalic vein in the region of the deltopectoral groove before its junction with the axillary vein. To overcome the problem of restenosis due to intimal hyperplasia in the cephalic arch the investigators used the insertion of a stent-graft as an alternative approach. In this study they investigated the use of a PTFE-covered nitinol stent-graft (Fluency, Bard) versus a Luminex (Bard) stent.
- Conditions
- Stenosis
- Being tested
- Stent or stent-graft deployment
- Medical subject headings
- Constriction, Pathologic
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Stent or stent-graft deploymentDevice
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted26 Apr 2006 (estimated)
- Study startMay 2006
- Study completionAug 2006
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for StenosisStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 50 participants
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Shaare Zedek Medical Center
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Investigators
- David Shemesh, MD, Principal investigator, Shaare Zedek Medical Center
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00318435
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2646
- Status last verified
- Apr 2006
- First submitted
- 25 Apr 2006
- Last updated
- 19 Aug 2008
- Results posted
- No
Publications
Shemesh D, Goldin I, Zaghal I, Berlowitz D, Raveh D, Olsha O. Angioplasty with stent graft versus bare stent for recurrent cephalic arch stenosis in autogenous arteriovenous access for hemodialysis: a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Vasc Surg. 2008 Dec;48(6):1524-31, 1531.e1-2. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2008.07.071. Epub 2008 Oct 1.
PubMed 18829240
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 19 Aug 2008. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Fluency Stent-Graft Versus Luminex Stent for Angioplasty of Recurrent Stenosis of the Cephalic Arch in Autogenous Arteriovenous (AV) Access for Hemodialysis
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00318435
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2646
- Conditions
- Stenosis
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 50 participants
- Lead sponsor
- Shaare Zedek Medical CenterUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- May 2006
- Study completion
- Aug 2006 (actual)
- First posted
- 26 Apr 2006 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The type of hemodialysis access and preservation of this access greatly influences the quality of life and survival of patients undergoing hemodialysis. The Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (K/DOQI) guidelines for vascular access recommend the primary placement of native or autogenous hemodialysis fistulas in preference to polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) grafts and central venous catheters because the former form of access has fewer complications and a longer durability. However, autogenous hemodialysis fistulas, like polytetrafluoroethylene grafts, are also subject to dysfunction and eventual failure. Endovascular angioplasty has become an accepted alternative treatment to surgical revision for hemodialysis access-related venous stenoses and occlusions. However, the patency rates in the follow-up period are low because of the high frequency of restenosis due to intimal hyperplasia. Since 1988, noncovered stents have been used to improve fistula patency. In the central veins, bare stents demonstrate better patency rates than percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) alone. Neointimal hyperplasia is the major reason for restenosis following stent placement. The cephalic vein forms the outflow conduit for radiocephalic and brachiocephalic autogenous fistulas. It has recently been suggested that a focal area of the cephalic vein is prone to developing hemodynamically significant stenosis, in what is now termed the cephalic arch. This is the perpendicular portion of the cephalic vein in the region of the deltopectoral groove before its junction with the axillary vein. To overcome the problem of restenosis due to intimal hyperplasia in the cephalic arch the investigators used the insertion of a stent-graft as an alternative approach. In this study they investigated the use of a PTFE-covered nitinol stent-graft (Fluency, Bard) versus a Luminex (Bard) stent.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 15 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Patients included in this study would be presented for intervention after observation in the Vascular Access Unit for one of the following:
Key exclusion criteria (0 listed)
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Stent or stent-graft deployment | Device | – |
Primary outcome
Not reported in the source record.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 19 Aug 2008.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 18829240Shemesh D, Goldin I, Zaghal I, Berlowitz D, Raveh D, Olsha O. Angioplasty with stent graft versus bare stent for recurrent cephalic arch stenosis in autogenous arteriovenous access for hemodialysis: a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Vasc Surg. 2008 Dec;48(6):1524-31, 1531.e1-2. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2008.07.071. Epub 2008 Oct 1.
Related trials for Stenosis
Active, not recruiting
Shockwave™ vs Surgical Endarterectomy for Calcified Severe Common Femoral Artery Stenosis: Comparison of Efficacy, Safety and Long-Term Outcomes
Common Femoral Artery Stenosis, Calcification; Heart
Recruiting
Trial of the F2 Filter and Delivery System for Embolic Protection During TAVR
Aortic Stenosis Treated With TAVI, Aortic Diseases
Not yet recruiting
Human Experimental Models of Pain (HEMP)
Acute Pain
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Intravascular Lithotripsy in High Risk Calcified Iliac Anatomy for Transfemoral TAVR
Iliac Disease, Aortic Valve Stenosis
Not yet recruiting
NHLBI SESAME (SEptal Scoring Along Midline Endocardium) Multi-Center Prospective Study Using Improvised Off-Label Devices
Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy, Left Ventricular Outflow Obstruction
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
David Shemesh, MD principal investigator
Shaare Zedek Medical Center
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 4 study testing Stent or stent-graft deployment in people with Stenosis, run by Shaare Zedek Medical Center at 1 site in Israel.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 0 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 19 Aug 2008. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Israel. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 4 studies take place after a treatment is approved, to learn more about its long-term benefits and risks in everyday use.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00318435, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 19 Aug 2008.