Hemorrhagic ShockSWATNCT03402035
Shock, Whole Blood, and Assessment of TBI S.W.A.T. (LITES TO 2)
An observational study of Hemorrhagic Shock and Traumatic Brain Injury, run by University of Pittsburgh at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The LITES Network is an operational trauma center consortium which has the expertise, track record and confirmed capabilities to conduct prospective, multicenter, injury care and outcomes research of relevance to the Department of Defense (DoD). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 15 to 90 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Hemorrhagic Shock, Traumatic Brain Injury
- How many people
- 1,051 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 1 May 2018to 2 Mar 2022
- Phase
- Observational
- 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 15 to 90 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Study population: The study will focus on patients who suffer blunt or penetrating injury, transported to a SWAT participating LITES trauma center with evidence of hemorrhagic shock at risk of large volume resuscitation.
Who may be able to join
- Patients with blunt or penetrating injury who meet the following criteria: 1, 2, and 3
- Has 2 or more of any of the following:
- Hypotension (systolic blood pressure ≤ 90 mmHg) in the prehospital or emergency department setting,
- Penetrating mechanism,
- Positive FAST abdominal ultrasound,
- Heart Rate ≥ 120 in the prehospital or emergency department setting.
Show all 10Show fewer
- AND
- Taken to the Operating Room (laparotomy, thoracotomy or vascular exploration) or Interventional Radiology within 60 minutes of arrival.
- AND
- Need of blood/blood component transfusion in prehospital setting, ED or OR within 60 minutes of arrival.
Who cannot join
- Age ≤ 14
- CPR > 5 consecutive minutes without ROSC
- Penetrating brain injury with brain matter exposed
- ED death
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15213
About this study
Official title: Shock, Whole Blood and Assessment of TBI- S.W.A.T.- Linking Investigations in Trauma and Emergency Services (LITES) Task Order 2
The LITES Network is an operational trauma center consortium which has the expertise, track record and confirmed capabilities to conduct prospective, multicenter, injury care and outcomes research of relevance to the Department of Defense (DoD).
Hemorrhage and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) are responsible for the largest proportion of all trauma-related deaths. It is the poly-trauma patient who suffers both hemorrhagic shock and traumatic brain injury where a paucity of evidence exists to direct treatment, limiting the development of beneficial trauma practice guidelines.
Read more
The use of Whole Blood (WB) for early trauma resuscitation has been touted as the 'essential next step' in the evolution of trauma resuscitation. Despite its historical and more recent use, little is known regarding WB's benefit relative to the 'current practice' ratio-based blood component therapy in the acutely bleeding patient, and even less is known regarding its effects in patients with TBI.
AIM#1: Evaluate patient centered outcomes associated with early whole blood resuscitation practice as compared to component resuscitation in poly-trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock and further characterize outcome benefits in those with traumatic brain injury.
AIM#2: Characterize blood pressure and resuscitation endpoints during the acute resuscitation phase of care and the associated/attributable outcomes for traumatic brain injury in patients with hemorrhagic shock.
General Hypothesis #1: Whole blood resuscitation will be associated with improved mortality and resuscitation outcomes in poly-trauma patients and long term neurological outcome in those patients with traumatic brain injury as compared to those resuscitated with component therapy.
General Hypothesis #2: Differences in prehospital and acute phase resuscitation systolic blood pressure will be associated with differential outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injury at discharge and at 6 months.
Study Design: The LITES network will perform a multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study over a 4 year period to determine the impact of whole blood resuscitation in trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock at risk of large volume resuscitation with and without TBI. Early whole blood resuscitation will be compared to standard component resuscitation. The study will also further characterize blood pressure and resuscitation endpoints in poly-trauma patients with traumatic brain injury. Six Trauma sites with appropriate characteristics will be selected from 12 LITES Network sites across the country.
Study Setting: The study will be performed utilizing busy level I trauma centers within the LITES Network located across the country, at sites where either whole blood has currently been incorporated into standard of care or where component blood transfusion is being utilized for patients in hemorrhagic shock at risk for large volume resuscitation.
Study Population: The study will focus on patients who suffer blunt or penetrating injury, transported to a SWAT participating LITES trauma center with evidence of hemorrhagic shock at risk of large volume blood resuscitation.
Read the detailed description
Background
The LITES Network is an operational trauma center consortium which has the expertise, track record and confirmed capabilities to conduct prospective, multicenter, injury care and outcomes research of relevance to the Department of Defense (DoD). Clinical trials from the point of injury in the prehospital arena through the trauma bay and operating theatre, thru ICU and beyond discharge are feasible and critical to the overall goals of the network. Novel capabilities include prehospital point of care testing for shock severity and sequential coagulopathy measurements. The network and leadership have a track record of Exception From Informed Consent (EFIC) trials and expertise with those injury subtypes including traumatic brain injury, hemorrhagic shock and coagulopathy of trauma, poly-trauma and severe extremity trauma. In addition to the track record and proven capabilities, the LITES Network uses a central IRB and efficient methods to minimize time, resources, cost and regulatory burdens and improve recruitment, consent rates and ease of data acquisition to promote successful execution of those task orders provided to the network from the DoD.
Traumatic injury represents an incredible health care burden in the United States and worldwide.1 Hemorrhage and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) are responsible for the largest proportion of all trauma-related deaths. Despite advances in trauma resuscitation and brain injury management, few therapeutic interventions are available to reduce the downstream morbidity and mortality attributable to these injury patterns. It is the poly-trauma patient who suffers both hemorrhagic shock and traumatic brain injury where a paucity of evidence exists to direct treatment, limiting the development of beneficial trauma practice guidelines.
Ongoing traumatic blood loss is complicated by trauma induced coagulopathy which results in further unbridled hemorrhage and resultant shock and organ dysfunction. Secondary to increasing evidence and knowledge, in-hospital resuscitation of traumatic hemorrhage has changed over the past decade to reduce the coagulopathic response to ischemia and tissue injury. The underlying principle of current resuscitation practice focuses on preventing or reversing the effects of coagulopathy with the early use of a balanced component transfusion strategy (1:1:1 - plasma: packed red blood cells: platelets). This reconstituted strategy has also been coined 'whole blood-like' resuscitation despite being inferior from a compositional standpoint relative to Whole Blood (WB). The use of WB was historically the gold standard for treating hemorrhagic shock during World War I and II, prior to sweeping changes in blood banking practice. The use of WB for early trauma resuscitation is making a resurgence, primarily based upon the military experience and has been touted as the 'essential next step' in the evolution of trauma resuscitation. Despite its historical and more recent use, little is known regarding WB's benefit relative to the 'current practice' ratio based blood component therapy in the acutely injured patients and even less is known regarding its effects in patients with TBI.
Permissive hypotension has been thought to improve outcome in injured patients with hemorrhagic shock in the prehospital and acute resuscitation phase of treatment allowing for the ability to obtain surgical control of bleeding while minimizing ongoing hemorrhage. Despite this benefit for hemorrhagic shock patients, hypotension has been consistently shown to be associated with worse outcomes in patients with TBI. Interestingly, newer animal data suggests permissive hypotension may be beneficial in a swine TBI model.The majority of prior, high level TBI trials have excluded patients with concomitant hemorrhagic shock. Prospective evidence and long term TBI outcome data are lacking for these complex poly-trauma patients and the most appropriate blood pressure and most efficacious resuscitation target for patients with TBI and acute hemorrhage remain poorly characterized.
Hypothesis #1A: Whole blood resuscitation will be associated with a lower 4 hour mortality in poly-trauma patients as compared to those resuscitated with component therapy.
Hypothesis #1B: Whole blood resuscitation will be associated with a lower incidence of 12 hour and 24 hour mortality, a lower incidence of death from exsanguination, incidence of MOF, nosocomial infection, improved transfusion ratios, lower overall blood transfusion requirements and shorter time to hemostasis as compared to those resuscitated with component therapy.
Hypothesis #1C: Whole blood resuscitation will be associated with an improved Glasgow Outcome Score-Extended at 6 months post injury as compared to those resuscitated with component therapy in patients with traumatic brain injury.
Hypothesis #2A: A nadir prehospital and acute phase resuscitation systolic blood pressure greater than or equal to 120 mmHg will be associated with improved traumatic brain injury outcomes at discharge and at 6 months.
Hypothesis #2B: The magnitude of the dose depth curve of systolic blood pressure during the prehospital and acute phase resuscitation will be associated with neurological outcome differences at discharge and at 6 months following traumatic brain injury.
Research Design and Methods
Study Design: The LITES Network will perform a multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study over a 4 year period to determine the impact of whole blood resuscitation in trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock at risk of large volume resuscitation with and without TBI. Early whole blood resuscitation will be compared to standard component resuscitation. The study will also further characterize blood pressure and resuscitation endpoints in poly-trauma patients with traumatic brain injury. Six trauma sites with appropriate characteristics will be selected from 12 network sites across the country.
Study Setting: The study will be performed utilizing busy level I trauma centers from within the LITES Network located across the country, at sites where either whole blood has currently been incorporated into standard of care or where component blood transfusion is being utilized for patients in hemorrhagic shock at risk for large volume resuscitation. Due to the paucity of trauma centers who are currently utilizing whole blood for trauma patients as standard of care, the potential to incorporate sites outside of the current LITES Network may be required over time.
- Conditions
- Hemorrhagic Shock, Traumatic Brain Injury
- Keywords
- Whole Blood Resuscitation
- Medical subject headings
- Shock, Hemorrhagic, Brain Injuries, Traumatic
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Whole Blood | Subjects at enrolling centers that utilize whole blood for hemorrhagic shock | |
| Component Therapy | Subjects at enrolling centers that utilize component therapy for hemorrhagic shock |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
4 Hour Mortality
mortality at 4 hours
Measured: 4 hours
Secondary outcomes (1)
24 Hour Mortality
mortality at 24 hours
Measured: 24 hours
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted17 Jan 2018
- Study start1 May 2018
- Primary completion26 Sep 2021
- Study completion2 Mar 2022
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.
- Other trials for Hemorrhagic ShockStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of PittsburghThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- 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
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 1,051 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Pittsburgh
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- United States Department of Defense
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Jason Sperry, University of Pittsburgh
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03402035
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- PRO17090104
- Acronym
- SWAT
- Status last verified
- Jun 2023
- First submitted
- 14 Dec 2017
- Last updated
- 8 Feb 2024
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 8 Feb 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Shock, Whole Blood and Assessment of TBI- S.W.A.T.- Linking Investigations in Trauma and Emergency Services (LITES) Task Order 2
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03402035
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SWAT / PRO17090104
- Conditions
- Hemorrhagic Shock, Traumatic Brain Injury
- Keywords
- Whole Blood Resuscitation
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 1,051 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of PittsburghUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- United States Department of Defense
- Study start
- 1 May 2018 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 26 Sep 2021 (actual)
- Study completion
- 2 Mar 2022 (actual)
- First posted
- 17 Jan 2018 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 8 Feb 2024
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The LITES Network is an operational trauma center consortium which has the expertise, track record and confirmed capabilities to conduct prospective, multicenter, injury care and outcomes research of relevance to the Department of Defense (DoD).
Hemorrhage and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) are responsible for the largest proportion of all trauma-related deaths. It is the poly-trauma patient who suffers both hemorrhagic shock and traumatic brain injury where a paucity of evidence exists to direct treatment, limiting the development of beneficial trauma practice guidelines.
The use of Whole Blood (WB) for early trauma resuscitation has been touted as the 'essential next step' in the evolution of trauma resuscitation. Despite its historical and more recent use, little is known regarding WB's benefit relative to the 'current practice' ratio-based blood component therapy in the acutely bleeding patient, and even less is known regarding its effects in patients with TBI.
AIM#1: Evaluate patient centered outcomes associated with early whole blood resuscitation practice as compared to component resuscitation in poly-trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock and further characterize outcome benefits in those with traumatic brain injury.
AIM#2: Characterize blood pressure and resuscitation endpoints during the acute resuscitation phase of care and the associated/attributable outcomes for traumatic brain injury in patients with hemorrhagic shock.
General Hypothesis #1: Whole blood resuscitation will be associated with improved mortality and resuscitation outcomes in poly-trauma patients and long term neurological outcome in those patients with traumatic brain injury as compared to those resuscitated with component therapy.
General Hypothesis #2: Differences in prehospital and acute phase resuscitation systolic blood pressure will be associated with differential outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injury at discharge and at 6 months.
Study Design: The LITES network will perform a multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study over a 4 year period to determine the impact of whole blood resuscitation in trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock at risk of large volume resuscitation with and without TBI. Early whole blood resuscitation will be compared to standard component resuscitation. The study will also further characterize blood pressure and resuscitation endpoints in poly-trauma patients with traumatic brain injury. Six Trauma sites with appropriate characteristics will be selected from 12 LITES Network sites across the country.
Study Setting: The study will be performed utilizing busy level I trauma centers within the LITES Network located across the country, at sites where either whole blood has currently been incorporated into standard of care or where component blood transfusion is being utilized for patients in hemorrhagic shock at risk for large volume resuscitation.
Study Population: The study will focus on patients who suffer blunt or penetrating injury, transported to a SWAT participating LITES trauma center with evidence of hemorrhagic shock at risk of large volume blood resuscitation.
Detailed description
Background
The LITES Network is an operational trauma center consortium which has the expertise, track record and confirmed capabilities to conduct prospective, multicenter, injury care and outcomes research of relevance to the Department of Defense (DoD). Clinical trials from the point of injury in the prehospital arena through the trauma bay and operating theatre, thru ICU and beyond discharge are feasible and critical to the overall goals of the network. Novel capabilities include prehospital point of care testing for shock severity and sequential coagulopathy measurements. The network and leadership have a track record of Exception From Informed Consent (EFIC) trials and expertise with those injury subtypes including traumatic brain injury, hemorrhagic shock and coagulopathy of trauma, poly-trauma and severe extremity trauma. In addition to the track record and proven capabilities, the LITES Network uses a central IRB and efficient methods to minimize time, resources, cost and regulatory burdens and improve recruitment, consent rates and ease of data acquisition to promote successful execution of those task orders provided to the network from the DoD.
Traumatic injury represents an incredible health care burden in the United States and worldwide.1 Hemorrhage and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) are responsible for the largest proportion of all trauma-related deaths. Despite advances in trauma resuscitation and brain injury management, few therapeutic interventions are available to reduce the downstream morbidity and mortality attributable to these injury patterns. It is the poly-trauma patient who suffers both hemorrhagic shock and traumatic brain injury where a paucity of evidence exists to direct treatment, limiting the development of beneficial trauma practice guidelines.
Ongoing traumatic blood loss is complicated by trauma induced coagulopathy which results in further unbridled hemorrhage and resultant shock and organ dysfunction. Secondary to increasing evidence and knowledge, in-hospital resuscitation of traumatic hemorrhage has changed over the past decade to reduce the coagulopathic response to ischemia and tissue injury. The underlying principle of current resuscitation practice focuses on preventing or reversing the effects of coagulopathy with the early use of a balanced component transfusion strategy (1:1:1 - plasma: packed red blood cells: platelets). This reconstituted strategy has also been coined 'whole blood-like' resuscitation despite being inferior from a compositional standpoint relative to Whole Blood (WB). The use of WB was historically the gold standard for treating hemorrhagic shock during World War I and II, prior to sweeping changes in blood banking practice. The use of WB for early trauma resuscitation is making a resurgence, primarily based upon the military experience and has been touted as the 'essential next step' in the evolution of trauma resuscitation. Despite its historical and more recent use, little is known regarding WB's benefit relative to the 'current practice' ratio based blood component therapy in the acutely injured patients and even less is known regarding its effects in patients with TBI.
Permissive hypotension has been thought to improve outcome in injured patients with hemorrhagic shock in the prehospital and acute resuscitation phase of treatment allowing for the ability to obtain surgical control of bleeding while minimizing ongoing hemorrhage. Despite this benefit for hemorrhagic shock patients, hypotension has been consistently shown to be associated with worse outcomes in patients with TBI. Interestingly, newer animal data suggests permissive hypotension may be beneficial in a swine TBI model.The majority of prior, high level TBI trials have excluded patients with concomitant hemorrhagic shock. Prospective evidence and long term TBI outcome data are lacking for these complex poly-trauma patients and the most appropriate blood pressure and most efficacious resuscitation target for patients with TBI and acute hemorrhage remain poorly characterized.
Hypothesis #1A: Whole blood resuscitation will be associated with a lower 4 hour mortality in poly-trauma patients as compared to those resuscitated with component therapy.
Hypothesis #1B: Whole blood resuscitation will be associated with a lower incidence of 12 hour and 24 hour mortality, a lower incidence of death from exsanguination, incidence of MOF, nosocomial infection, improved transfusion ratios, lower overall blood transfusion requirements and shorter time to hemostasis as compared to those resuscitated with component therapy.
Hypothesis #1C: Whole blood resuscitation will be associated with an improved Glasgow Outcome Score-Extended at 6 months post injury as compared to those resuscitated with component therapy in patients with traumatic brain injury.
Hypothesis #2A: A nadir prehospital and acute phase resuscitation systolic blood pressure greater than or equal to 120 mmHg will be associated with improved traumatic brain injury outcomes at discharge and at 6 months.
Hypothesis #2B: The magnitude of the dose depth curve of systolic blood pressure during the prehospital and acute phase resuscitation will be associated with neurological outcome differences at discharge and at 6 months following traumatic brain injury.
Research Design and Methods
Study Design: The LITES Network will perform a multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study over a 4 year period to determine the impact of whole blood resuscitation in trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock at risk of large volume resuscitation with and without TBI. Early whole blood resuscitation will be compared to standard component resuscitation. The study will also further characterize blood pressure and resuscitation endpoints in poly-trauma patients with traumatic brain injury. Six trauma sites with appropriate characteristics will be selected from 12 network sites across the country.
Study Setting: The study will be performed utilizing busy level I trauma centers from within the LITES Network located across the country, at sites where either whole blood has currently been incorporated into standard of care or where component blood transfusion is being utilized for patients in hemorrhagic shock at risk for large volume resuscitation. Due to the paucity of trauma centers who are currently utilizing whole blood for trauma patients as standard of care, the potential to incorporate sites outside of the current LITES Network may be required over time.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Whole Blood | – | –Subjects at enrolling centers that utilize whole blood for hemorrhagic shock |
| Component Therapy | – | –Subjects at enrolling centers that utilize component therapy for hemorrhagic shock |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 15 to 90 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- The study will focus on patients who suffer blunt or penetrating injury, transported to a SWAT participating LITES trauma center with evidence of hemorrhagic shock at risk of large volume resuscitation.
Key inclusion criteria (10 listed)
- Patients with blunt or penetrating injury who meet the following criteria: 1, 2, and 3
- Has 2 or more of any of the following:
- AND
- Taken to the Operating Room (laparotomy, thoracotomy or vascular exploration) or Interventional Radiology within 60 minutes of arrival.
- AND
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Age ≤ 14
- CPR > 5 consecutive minutes without ROSC
- Penetrating brain injury with brain matter exposed
- ED death
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
4 Hour Mortality
Time frame: 4 hours
mortality at 4 hours
1 secondary outcome
24 Hour Mortality
Time frame: 24 hours
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 8 Feb 2024.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
Related trials for Hemorrhagic Shock
RecruitingPhase 2
CAlcium and VAsopressin Following Injury Early Resuscitation (CAVALIER) Trial
Trauma, Hemorrhage
RecruitingPhase 4
Adult Outpatient Linvoseltamab With Tocilizumab Prophylaxis to Mitigate the Risk of Cytokine Release Syndrome (CRS)
Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM)
Enrolling by invitationObservational study
Cryo-FIRST: Effectiveness of INTERCEPT Fibrinogen Complex (IFC) for Trauma-Associated Hemorrhage
Hypofibrinogenemia, Hemorrhage
RecruitingPhase 4
The Safety of Simplified Tranexamic Acid Regimen
Trauma Coagulopathy, Hemorrhage
RecruitingPhase 2
Infliximab for Cytokine Release Syndrome Prophylaxis During Teclistamab or Talquetamab Therapy in Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Myeloma
Cytokine Release Syndrome, Recurrent Multiple Myeloma
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.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Hemorrhagic Shock and Traumatic Brain Injury, run by University of Pittsburgh at 1 site 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 10 inclusion and 4 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 8 Feb 2024. 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 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 8 Feb 2024). 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?
4 Hour Mortality (time frame: 4 hours). 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 Feb 2024.