Pulmonary EmbolismNCT01112917
VenaTech Convertible Vena Cava Filter U.S. Multi-Center Clinical Trial
A study testing VenaTech Convertible Vena Cava Filter and Vena Cava Filter Conversion in people with Pulmonary Embolism, run by B. Braun Interventional Systems, Inc at 11 sites in United States.
Trial summary
The investigation is designed to verify that clinical use of the vena cava filter does not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness compared to currently-marketed permanent filters. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Pulmonary Embolism
- What is being tested?
- VenaTech Convertible Vena Cava Filter and Vena Cava Filter Conversion
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion, Medical device, Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 149 participants
- Where
- 11 sitesUnited States
- Study dates
- Dec 2011to Sep 2015
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
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 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- The subject is 18 years of age or older
- The subject is at a time-limited risk of pulmonary embolism as judged by the implanting or referring physician
- In the physician's judgment, the subject requires prevention of pulmonary embolism and placement of a vena cava filter is indicated because anticoagulants are contraindicated, or the subject has experienced failure of anticoagulant therapy in thromboembolic diseases in the past, or the subject requires emergency treatment following massive pulmonary embolism where anticipated benefits of conventional therapy are reduced
- The subject, or their legal representative, is willing and able to provide informed consent
- The subject is willing and able to comply with the requirements of the study protocol, including the predefined follow-up visit evaluations
- The subject's vena cava diameter is ≤ 28 mm as evaluated by contrast venacavography and corrected for magnification
Who cannot join
- The subject is a female of childbearing potential and known to be, or suspected to be, pregnant (verified with a urine/blood pregnancy test), or unwilling to use an acceptable form of birth control for as long as the device is implanted
- The subject is severely disabled and his/her life expectancy appears limited according to the investigator's opinion (≤ 6 months)
- The subject already has an implanted vena cava filter
- The subject has contrast allergy to both iodinated contrast and non-iodinated contrast materials
- The subject has a duplicated IVC
- The subject is bacteremic
Show all 11Show fewer
- The subject has an active malignancy with associated hypercoagulability or mortality likely preventing the VenaTech Convertible filter from being converted within 6 months of implant
- The subject would be unavailable for follow-up
- Filter implantation using the right internal jugular or femoral veins is not possible
- There is no location available in the infrarenal inferior vena cava for placement of the VenaTech Convertible vena cava filter (assessed using contrast venacavography)
- The subject is currently participating in another clinical study or has participated in one within the last 30 days or plans to participate in one during the next 6 months
Trial locations and contacts
11 sites in 1 country.
11 sites in 1 country
United States11 sites
Abington Memorial Hospital
Abington, Pennsylvania, 19001
Medical University of South Carolina
Charleston, South Carolina, 29403
University of Virginia Health Systems
Charlottesville, Virginia, 22908
Northwestern Memorial Hospital
Chicago, Illinois, 60611
Adventist Health System
Hinsdale, Illinois, 60521
North Shore University Hospital - Manhasset
Manhasset, New York, 11030
Baptist Hospital of Miami
Miami, Florida, 33176
Froedtert Memorial Lutheran Hospital
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 53226
Weill Cornell Medical College - New York Presbyterian Hospital
New York, New York, 10021
Allegheny General Hospital
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15212
Beaumont Health System
Royal Oak, Michigan, 48073
About this study
The investigation is designed to verify that clinical use of the vena cava filter does not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness compared to currently-marketed permanent filters.
Read the detailed description
The investigation was designed as a multi-center, prospective, single-arm, historical (literature) controlled clinical study of VenaTech Convertible filter safety and performance in 75 subjects in whom the filter has been implanted, converted, and followed for 6-months. The study could enroll up to 323 patients to ensure 75 converted subjects with 6 months of follow-up data. Converted subjects were followed at 30-days, 3-months, and 6-months post conversion. Subjects that were unable to undergo conversion were followed at 6-months post filter implant (permanent filtration subjects).
Study subjects were to be identified from the pool of candidates with a time-limited risk for pulmonary embolism. Subjects who signed the informed consent were evaluated to determine eligibility for the study based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Following completion of baseline procedures including a bilateral Doppler ultrasound of the legs to assess for baseline DVT and contrast venacavography to assess baseline IVC diameter, subjects underwent implantation of the VenaTech Convertible filter.
After device implant, a clinical assessment was completed to determine eligibility for filter conversion. This assessment was done at an interval post-implant and frequency per the investigator's discretion, often with input from the primary care physician. If the clinician determined the subject was no longer at risk for pulmonary embolism, there was no thrombus in or below the filter, and there was no clinically significant deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in the legs, the filter could be converted. After conversion, subjects were followed at 30 days and 3-months by telephone, and at a 6-months post-conversion office visit with imaging (KUB or spot film and Doppler or CT).
If during the conversion clinical assessment(s), the subject remained at risk for pulmonary embolism, additional conversion assessment(s) were completed per the investigator's discretion until the filter was either converted or the subject was determined to require permanent filtration.
At 6-months post-implant, if a study subject's filter had not been converted, no further conversion assessments were to be performed and no attempts were to be made to convert the filter as part of the study. The 6-month post filter implant visit was the final follow-up for nonconverted subjects, which also included imaging (KUB or spot film and Doppler or CT). The study protocol allowed the investigators flexibility as to the best IVC imaging modality based on the condition and anatomy of the subject.
The core laboratory reviewed all screening/baseline, filter implantation, conversion eligibility assessment, conversion, and 6-month follow-up images, with the exception of the ultrasounds. (The core laboratory recommended ultrasound images be evaluated by the expert sonographers at the sites). Additionally, any images taken as a result of a suspected filter-related adverse event or technical complication, with the exception of ultrasounds, were also sent to the core laboratory for review.
- Conditions
- Pulmonary Embolism
- Being tested
- VenaTech Convertible Vena Cava Filter, Vena Cava Filter Conversion
- Medical subject headings
- Pulmonary Embolism
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
VenaTech Convertible Vena Cava FilterDevice
Prevention of Pulmonary Embolism
Vena Cava Filter ConversionProcedure or surgery
Conversion of VenaTech Convertible filter to open configuration.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| VenaTech Convertible Vena Cava Filter | Experimental | Implantation of the VenaTech Convertible Filter. The filter is pre-loaded in a cartridge (syringe) and provided as a system with introducer accessories and instructions to accommodate delivery and implantation either using the femoral or jugular approach. Receives: Device: VenaTech Convertible Vena Cava Filter; Procedure: Vena Cava Filter Conversion |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Technical Success
Technical success is defined as filter conversion without the loss of filter head components in the vasculature or incomplete opening of filtering legs. Further, in the analysis of the data, the sponsor did not count any filters as a 'technically' successful conversion when the operator was unable to snare the filter hook during an attempted conversion.
Measured: 6-months
Secondary outcomes (1)
Major Device-Related Adverse Events in Converted Subjects
Measured: 6-months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted29 Apr 2010 (estimated)
- Study startDec 2011
- Primary completionSep 2015
- Study completionSep 2015
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Pulmonary EmbolismStudies 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 N/A
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 149 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- B. Braun Interventional Systems, Inc
- Sponsor type
- Industry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Collaborators
- Bright Research Partners, NAMSA
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- William S Rilling, MD, Principal investigator, Froedtert Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01112917
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- CL-104
- Status last verified
- Jun 2016
- First submitted
- 8 Apr 2010
- Last updated
- 11 Jul 2016
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Vena Caval Filter Consensus Conference. Recommended reporting standards for vena caval filter placement and patient follow-up. J Vasc Surg. 1999 Sep;30(3):573-9. No abstract available.
PubMed 10477662Grassi CJ, Swan TL, Cardella JF, Meranze SG, Oglevie SB, Omary RA, Roberts AC, Sacks D, Silverstein MI, Towbin RB, Lewis CA; Society of Interventional Radiology Standards of Practice Committee. Quality improvement guidelines for percutaneous permanent inferior vena cava filter placement for the prevention of pulmonary embolism. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003 Sep;14(9 Pt 2):S271-5. No abstract available.
PubMed 14514832
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 11 Jul 2016. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- VenaTech Convertible Vena Cava Filter U.S. Multi-Center Clinical Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01112917
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- CL-104
- Conditions
- Pulmonary Embolism
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 149 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- B. Braun Interventional Systems, IncIndustry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Collaborators
- Bright Research Partners, NAMSA
- Study start
- Dec 2011
- Primary completion
- Sep 2015 (actual)
- Study completion
- Sep 2015 (actual)
- First posted
- 29 Apr 2010 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 11 Jul 2016
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The investigation is designed to verify that clinical use of the vena cava filter does not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness compared to currently-marketed permanent filters.
Detailed description
The investigation was designed as a multi-center, prospective, single-arm, historical (literature) controlled clinical study of VenaTech Convertible filter safety and performance in 75 subjects in whom the filter has been implanted, converted, and followed for 6-months. The study could enroll up to 323 patients to ensure 75 converted subjects with 6 months of follow-up data. Converted subjects were followed at 30-days, 3-months, and 6-months post conversion. Subjects that were unable to undergo conversion were followed at 6-months post filter implant (permanent filtration subjects).
Study subjects were to be identified from the pool of candidates with a time-limited risk for pulmonary embolism. Subjects who signed the informed consent were evaluated to determine eligibility for the study based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Following completion of baseline procedures including a bilateral Doppler ultrasound of the legs to assess for baseline DVT and contrast venacavography to assess baseline IVC diameter, subjects underwent implantation of the VenaTech Convertible filter.
After device implant, a clinical assessment was completed to determine eligibility for filter conversion. This assessment was done at an interval post-implant and frequency per the investigator's discretion, often with input from the primary care physician. If the clinician determined the subject was no longer at risk for pulmonary embolism, there was no thrombus in or below the filter, and there was no clinically significant deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in the legs, the filter could be converted. After conversion, subjects were followed at 30 days and 3-months by telephone, and at a 6-months post-conversion office visit with imaging (KUB or spot film and Doppler or CT).
If during the conversion clinical assessment(s), the subject remained at risk for pulmonary embolism, additional conversion assessment(s) were completed per the investigator's discretion until the filter was either converted or the subject was determined to require permanent filtration.
At 6-months post-implant, if a study subject's filter had not been converted, no further conversion assessments were to be performed and no attempts were to be made to convert the filter as part of the study. The 6-month post filter implant visit was the final follow-up for nonconverted subjects, which also included imaging (KUB or spot film and Doppler or CT). The study protocol allowed the investigators flexibility as to the best IVC imaging modality based on the condition and anatomy of the subject.
The core laboratory reviewed all screening/baseline, filter implantation, conversion eligibility assessment, conversion, and 6-month follow-up images, with the exception of the ultrasounds. (The core laboratory recommended ultrasound images be evaluated by the expert sonographers at the sites). Additionally, any images taken as a result of a suspected filter-related adverse event or technical complication, with the exception of ultrasounds, were also sent to the core laboratory for review.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| VenaTech Convertible Vena Cava Filter | Experimental | Device: VenaTech Convertible Vena Cava Filter, Procedure: Vena Cava Filter ConversionImplantation of the VenaTech Convertible Filter. The filter is pre-loaded in a cartridge (syringe) and provided as a system with introducer accessories and instructions to accommodate delivery and implantation either using the femoral or jugular approach. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- The subject is 18 years of age or older
- The subject is at a time-limited risk of pulmonary embolism as judged by the implanting or referring physician
- In the physician's judgment, the subject requires prevention of pulmonary embolism and placement of a vena cava filter is indicated because anticoagulants are contraindicated, or the subject has experienced failure of anticoagulant therapy in thromboembolic diseases in the past, or the subject requires emergency treatment following massive pulmonary embolism where anticipated benefits of conventional therapy are reduced
- The subject, or their legal representative, is willing and able to provide informed consent
- The subject is willing and able to comply with the requirements of the study protocol, including the predefined follow-up visit evaluations
Key exclusion criteria (11 listed)
- The subject is a female of childbearing potential and known to be, or suspected to be, pregnant (verified with a urine/blood pregnancy test), or unwilling to use an acceptable form of birth control for as long as the device is implanted
- The subject is severely disabled and his/her life expectancy appears limited according to the investigator's opinion (≤ 6 months)
- The subject already has an implanted vena cava filter
- The subject has contrast allergy to both iodinated contrast and non-iodinated contrast materials
- The subject has a duplicated IVC
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 |
|---|---|---|
| VenaTech Convertible Vena Cava FilterPrevention of Pulmonary Embolism | Device | VenaTech Convertible Vena Cava Filter |
| Vena Cava Filter ConversionConversion of VenaTech Convertible filter to open configuration. | Procedure or surgery | VenaTech Convertible Vena Cava Filter |
Primary outcome
Technical Success
Time frame: 6-months
Technical success is defined as filter conversion without the loss of filter head components in the vasculature or incomplete opening of filtering legs. Further, in the analysis of the data, the sponsor did not count any filters as a 'technically' successful conversion when the operator was unable to snare the filter hook during an attempted conversion.
1 secondary outcome
Major Device-Related Adverse Events in Converted Subjects
Time frame: 6-months
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 11 Jul 2016.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Background: PubMed 10477662Vena Caval Filter Consensus Conference. Recommended reporting standards for vena caval filter placement and patient follow-up. J Vasc Surg. 1999 Sep;30(3):573-9. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 14514832Grassi CJ, Swan TL, Cardella JF, Meranze SG, Oglevie SB, Omary RA, Roberts AC, Sacks D, Silverstein MI, Towbin RB, Lewis CA; Society of Interventional Radiology Standards of Practice Committee. Quality improvement guidelines for percutaneous permanent inferior vena cava filter placement for the prevention of pulmonary embolism. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003 Sep;14(9 Pt 2):S271-5. No abstract available.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Pulmonary Embolism
RecruitingObservational study
Clinical Management and Outcomes After Lung Scintigraphy for Suspected Pulmonary Embolism in the Emergency Department
Pulmonary Embolism (Diagnosis)
Not yet recruiting
CTEPH Differential Diagnosis Assisted by Enhanced Large Language Model Support
Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension (CTEPH), Acute Pulmonary Embolism (PE)
Not yet recruitingPhase 4
Reduced-Dose Versus Full-Dose Alteplase for High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism
Pulmonary Embolism Acute
Active, not recruitingPhase 3
Pulmonary Embolism - Thrombus Removal With Catheter-Directed Therapy
Pulmonary Embolism
RecruitingObservational study
A Real-World Study of EkoSonic Endovascular System in Chinese Populations With Acute Pulmonary Embolism
Acute Pulmonary Embolism
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.
William S Rilling, MD principal investigator
Froedtert Hospital
11 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing VenaTech Convertible Vena Cava Filter and Vena Cava Filter Conversion in people with Pulmonary Embolism, run by B. Braun Interventional Systems, Inc at 11 sites in United States.
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 6 inclusion and 11 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 11 Jul 2016. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 11 sites in United States. 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.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 11 Jul 2016). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
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.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Technical Success (time frame: 6-months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT01112917, which also lists 2 linked publications.
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 11 Jul 2016.