AzTrials
AzTrials

Pediatric GlaucomaPhase 4NCT01494974

Comparison of the Ahmed Glaucoma Valve FP7 and FP8 in Pediatric Glaucoma

A Phase 4 study testing FP7 Ahmed Glaucoma Drainage Implant and FP8 Glaucoma Drainage Implant in people with Pediatric Glaucoma, run by Federal University of São Paulo at 1 site in Brazil.

Unknown status

Status not confirmed. The sponsor has not verified this record for over two years, so it may be out of date.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

The purpose of this study is to compare the success rates and complications of two models of Ahmed glaucoma implants (FP7 and FP8) in patients with pediatric glaucoma. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages Up to 10 years
Conditions the study is for
Pediatric Glaucoma
What is being tested?
FP7 Ahmed Glaucoma Drainage Implant and FP8 Glaucoma Drainage Implant
Type of treatment
Medical device
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
40 participants
Where
1 siteBrazil
Study dates
Dec 2011to Dec 2015
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 Up to 10 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Child

Who may be able to join

  • Diagnostic of Pediatric Glaucoma with indication of Ahmed Glaucoma Valve implantation
  • Age from 0 to 10 years old

Who cannot join

  • Children older then 10 years old

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Camila F Netto, MD contact

+55-1199177717

milanetto@gmail.com

Brazil1 site, 1 recruiting
  • Federal University of São Paulo - Ophthalmology Department

    São Paulo, São Paulo, 04023-062

    Camila F Netto, MD, +55-11-99177717, milanetto@gmail.com

    Camila F Netto, MD

    Recruiting

Other trials in Brazil

About this study

Official title: Comparison of the Ahmed Glaucoma Valve FP7 and FP8 in Pediatric Glaucoma: a Randomized Clinical Trial.

The purpose of this study is to compare the success rates and complications of two models of Ahmed glaucoma implants (FP7 and FP8) in patients with pediatric glaucoma.

Read the detailed description

INTRODUCTION

The drainage implants have become an important alternative in the treatment of pediatric glaucoma refractory to angular and filtration surgery or medical therapy (1). Such implants drain the aqueous humor from the anterior chamber of the eye to a plate positioned above the sclera, between the rectus muscles. The aqueous humor goes through the pseudocyst that forms around the plate by passive diffusion and is drained by the venous capillaries and lymphatic system.

The Ahmed drainage implant (New World Medical, Inc., Rancho Cucamonga, CA, USA) is a device with flow restrictors, which decreases the incidence of postoperative complications such as hypotony (2-3). It is made of silicone and comes in two sizes. The FP7 model has a surface of 184 mm2, 13mm wide and 16mm long. The FP8 model presents 96mm2 surface, 9.6 mm wide and 10mm long.

Studies in animals and adult humans suggest that the surface area of the implant plate is directly related to the amount of aqueous fluid drained through the same (4-7). In contrast, a very large implant can result in the extrusion of the same, uncontrolled intraocular pressure, corneal injury by endothelial touch, patient discomfort and ocular motility problems. The use of pediatric size implants in small eyes can avoid such complications. A high rate (34.8%) of anterior plate of the tubes in children under 2 years of age has been reported (8-9). On the other hand, the use of pediatric implante may affect the control of intraocular pressure (IOP) due to reduced drainage area (10), especially in eyes with increasing axial diameter, a result of increased eye pressure that happens in children with glaucoma. However, there is no study in the literature comparing different sizes of drainage implants in pediatric patients.

A study to compare the success rates and complications between FP7 and FP8 models is essential in order to standardize a conduct in choosing the type of implant. Currently, the choice of the drainage implant model to be used in every child lies on the free choice and personal preference of the surgeon. There is no standard procedure, based on scientific evidence for this choice.

OBJECTIVES

Compare the success rates and complications of two models of Ahmed drainage implant (FP7 and FP8) in patients with pediatric glaucoma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This clinical trial is a prospective, randomized, masked to the evaluator to be held at the Department of Ophthalmology, Federal University of Sao Paulo.

Will be included children between 0 and 10 years of age with glaucoma and surgical indication for glaucoma drainage implant. Surgical indication for implantation of Ahmed drainage occurs in some situations: 1) children with primary congenital glaucoma that undergone angular surgery (goniotomy and / or trabeculotomy) who did not respond satisfactorily to surgery, 2) children with glaucoma secondary to aphakia who have the primary indication for implantation of Ahmed drainage, 3) children with glaucoma secondary to other eye disorders where medical treatment is not satisfactory.

A term of consent will be obtained from parents or legal guardians of the child, in which all the risks inherent to the surgical procedure will be clarified. Such risks are proper to antiglaucomatous surgery are:

  1. Early: hypotony, hyphema, tube endothelial touch, choroidal detachment, leakage of aqueous, vitreous hemorrhage, retinal detachment, loss of light perception
  2. late: uncontrolled intraocular pressure, persistent hypotony, scleral patch resorption, extrusion of the tube, retinal detachment, loss of light perception (11-18).

Considering that the selected patient has already the surgical indication for Ahmed drainage implant, the inclusion of this child in the study does not bring additional risks or discomforts to the same.

The model of the drainage implant will be chosen through allocation from a computer-generated random table.

Children enrolled in the study will be divided into two groups (one group will receive the model FP7 and another group will receive the model FP8) with the number of 20 participants in each group, totaling 40 children.

The surgeries will be performed by experienced surgeons from Glaucoma Sector from Department of Ophthalmology, Federal University of Sao Paulo.

The plate of the Ahmed drainage implant will be placed in one of the quadrants selected from the extraocular muscles between 8 and 10 mm away from the corneal limbus. The tube will have its distal portion inserted 2-3mm into the anterior chamber of the eye in the iris plane. The exposed portion of the tube is covered with donor sclera.

The children included in the study will be examined before surgery, which will be measured your visual acuity, biomicroscopy, IOP, Retinography and axial length of the eye. Immediately after surgery, with a compass we will measure the distance between the plate of drainage implant and corneal limbus.

Children will be examined again after 6 months and 1 year of surgery. We will perform the measurement of visual acuity, biomicroscopy, IOP, Retinography, axial length and measurement of the distance from the plate of the implant and corneal limbus. Post-operative examinations will be performed under narcosis, in hospitals (when it is impossible to take measures in an outpatient setting due to lack of cooperation of the child), by a doctor from congenital glaucoma sector who were not involved in the surgical procedure. The examination under narcosis involves risk to the child, which include cough, nausea, vomiting, laryngospasm, bronchospasm, apnea, bradycardia, tachycardia, hypertension, anxiety (19-21).

Two types of outcome will be considered in this study. The primary endpoint is to evaluate the position of the drainage implant plate and if the plate is positioned at a distance ≥ 8 mm from the corneal limbus after 1 year of surgery, considered successful. If the dish drain implant is positioned at a distance <8 mm from the corneal limbus, we have a failure.

As a secondary outcome, we evaluate the variation in IOP preoperative and postoperative. We will use as a criterion of success an IOP ≤ 21 mm Hg and> 5 mmHg and a 30% reduction of preoperative IOP. If the patient meets these criteria, without the use of eyedrop, classified as complete success. If the use of eyedrop is necessary to meet the criteria, a qualified success will be defined.

For failure criterion is assumed: IOP ≤ 5 mmHg or > 21 mm Hg, even with the use of eye drops, need for further surgery, and / or loss of light perception.

Being tested
FP7 Ahmed Glaucoma Drainage Implant, FP8 Glaucoma Drainage Implant
Keywords
Glaucoma, Pediatric, Ahmed, Congenital, FP7, FP8
Medical subject headings
Hydrophthalmos, Glaucoma

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • FP7 Ahmed Glaucoma Drainage ImplantDevice

    Ahmed Glaucoma Valve model FP7

  • FP8 Glaucoma Drainage ImplantDevice

    Ahmed Glaucoma Valve model FP8

Study groups in NCT01494974
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
FP7 implantActive comparatorNot described
Receives: Device: FP7 Ahmed Glaucoma Drainage Implant
FP8 implantActive comparatorNot described
Receives: Device: FP8 Glaucoma Drainage Implant

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Position of the drainage implant plate

    The primary endpoint is to evaluate the position of the drainage implant plate and if the plate is positioned at a distance ≥ 8 mm from the corneal limbus after 1 year of surgery, considered successful. If the plate is positioned at a distance <8 mm from the corneal limbus, we have a failure.

    Measured: After 1 year of surgery

Secondary outcomes (1)
  1. As a secondary outcome, we evaluate the variation in IOP preoperative and postoperative.

    We will use as a criterion of success an IOP ≤ 21 mm Hg and> 5 mmHg and a 30% reduction of preoperative IOP. If the patient meets these criteria, without the use of eyedrop, classified as complete success. If the use of eyedrop is necessary to meet the criteria, a qualified success will be defined.

    For failure criterion is assumed: IOP ≤ 5 mmHg or > 21 mm Hg, even with the use of eye drops, need for further surgery, and / or loss of light perception.

    Measured: After 1 year of surgery

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted19 Dec 2011 (estimated)
  2. Study startDec 2011
  3. Primary completionDec 2015 (estimated)

Resources

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
Double blind
Who is masked
Investigator, Outcomes assessor
Enrolment
40 participants (estimated)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT01494974
Sponsor's protocol ID
CEP 0236/11
Status last verified
Apr 2014
First submitted
15 Dec 2011
Last updated
8 Apr 2014
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A Phase 4 study testing FP7 Ahmed Glaucoma Drainage Implant and FP8 Glaucoma Drainage Implant in people with Pediatric Glaucoma, run by Federal University of São Paulo at 1 site in Brazil.

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 2 inclusion and 1 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: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 8 Apr 2014. 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 Brazil. 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?

Results are not available in the source record.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

Contact Camila F Netto, MD (+55-1199177717, milanetto@gmail.com), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Position of the drainage implant plate (time frame: After 1 year of surgery). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?
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 8 Apr 2014.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in