AzTrials
AzTrials

Abdomen, AcuteppuNCT05051683

Combined Endoscopic & Radiologic Intervention For Management Of Acute Perforated Peptic Ulcer

A study testing combined endoscopic & radiologic intervention for management of acute perforated peptic ulcer in people with Abdomen, Acute, run by Zagazig University at 1 site in Egypt.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

The investigators included all patients who were developed acute perforated peptic ulcer manifestations and were admitted to our hospital between December 2019 to August 2021. The study was approved by the research and Ethics committee of our university and performed in accordance with the code of ethics of the world… Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
Conditions the study is for
Abdomen, Acute
What is being tested?
combined endoscopic & radiologic intervention for management of acute perforated peptic ulcer
Type of treatment
Surgery or procedure
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
100 participants
Where
1 siteEgypt
Study dates
30 Dec 2019to 1 Sep 2021
Phase
Interventional
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 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • Healthy volunteers accepted
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Any patients with acute perforated peptic ulcer manifestations . _ age over 18 years.

Who cannot join

  • Patients presented with septic shock . _ age below 18 years

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Egypt1 site
  • Zagazig University Hospitals

    Zagazig, Sharqua, 1185

Other trials in Egypt

About this study

Official title: Combined Endoscopic & Radiologic Intervention For Management Of Acute Perforated Peptic Ulcer : A Randomized Controlled Trial

The investigators included all patients who were developed acute perforated peptic ulcer manifestations and were admitted to our hospital between December 2019 to August 2021. The study was approved by the research and Ethics committee of our university and performed in accordance with the code of ethics of the world medical association (Declaration of Helsinki) for studies involving humans. A written informed consent was obtained from all participants. The sample size was calculated using open Epi program using the following data ; confidence interval 95% , power of test 80% , ratio of unexposed/exposed 1, percent of patients with successful management of acute perforated peptic ulcer by surgical intervention 90% and those with successful management by endoscopy 99% , odds ratio 99%, and risk ratio 2 , so the calculated sample size equal 100 patients divided into two equal groups. Group (1) included 50 patients managed by combined endoscopic \& radiologic intervention , group (2) included 50 patients managed by surgery.

Read the detailed description

The investigators included all patients who were developed acute perforated peptic ulcer manifestations and were admitted to our hospital between December 2019 to August 2021. The study was approved by the research and Ethics committee of our university and performed in accordance with the code of ethics of the world medical association (Declaration of Helsinki) for studies involving humans. A written informed consent was obtained from all participants. The sample size was calculated using open Epi program using the following data ; confidence interval 95% , power of test 80% , ratio of unexposed/exposed 1, percent of patients with successful management of acute perforated peptic ulcer by surgical intervention 90% and those with successful management by endoscopy 99% , odds ratio 99%, and risk ratio 2 , so the calculated sample size equal 100 patients divided into two equal groups. Group (1) included 50 patients managed by combined endoscopic \& radiologic intervention , group (2) included 50 patients managed by surgery. Any patients with acute perforated peptic ulcer manifestations and age over 18 years were included. Patients presented with septic shock and age below 18 years were excluded.

Perioperative measures:

In this prospective randomized controlled trial , all patients were subjected to the followings: patients were selected by randomization method , Full history taking , Complete physical examination , laboratory investigations ( complete blood picture , liver and kidney functions , coagulation profile ) , radiological investigations ( chest x- ray erect , abdominal \& pelvic u/s ).

Surgical techniques :

Traditional surgical exploration and Graham omental patch repair with abdominal lavage either open or laparoscopy was done for group (2). For group (1) endoscopic management using stent , clipping and sewing combined with radiologic interventional drainage was used. For duodenal ulcer only metallic stent was used due to narrow space while for gastric ulcer either stent , clipping and sewing were used due to capacious space.

Metallic stent:

Upper GI endoscopy ( Model GIF - 2TH180; Olympus , Tokyo, Japan) was done , allowing through it stent placement. The endoscopy was passed beyond the site of perforation , a guide wire was passed through the endoscopy into the proximal part of the jejunum and a partially covered duodenal stent ( Hanaro, MI-tech Korea) was advanced and released over the wire ( Jagwire ; Boston Scientific , Marlborough , M , USA) to cover the perforation site. Attention was taken to place the oral part of the stent above the pylorus and the covered part of the stent at site of perforation.

At same time of stent placement a radiologic interventional team worked and drainage was done \& 2 intra-peritoneal tube drains were inserted one was placed sub-hepatic another was placed in the pelvis.

During postoperative day one a methylene blue test was done . and blue color was observed in the drain.

Stent was removed 3 weeks later and site of perforation was observed . if there was any sings of remaining perforation a new stent was placed for another 3 weeks.

Endoscopic clips:

Clips are used to approximate the tissue surrounding the defect to effect closure. Standard clips should be deployed perpendicular to the long axis of the defect. If needed, multiple clips can be placed sequentially, starting at either edge of a defect and meeting at the center. Currently available through-the-scope clips achieve superficial tissue apposition engaging the mucosa and submucosa (with 1.2-mm-wide and 6-mm-long arms capable of an approximately 12-mm grasp), and have been used in conjunction with thermal ablation or mechanical scraping of the tissue around the edges of the defect to achieve a more resilient seal. The Over-the-Scope Clip (Ovesco Endoscopic AG, Tubingen, Germany) is a nitinol clip placed on a cap at the endoscope tip . Unlike clips inserted through the endoscope, the OVESCO can perform full-thickness apposition.

At same time a radiologic interventional team worked and drainage was done \& 2 intra-peritoneal tube drains were inserted one was placed sub-hepatic another was placed in the pelvis.

During postoperative day one a methylene blue test was done . and blue color was observed in the drain.

Sewing:

The Stomaphy X suturing system (Endo Gastric Solutions, Redmond, WA) and the Apollo Over Stitch (Apollo Endo surgery, Austin, TX), which creates full-thickness plications , has shown early success .

At same time a radiologic interventional team worked and drainage was done \& 2 intra-peritoneal tube drains were inserted one was placed sub-hepatic another was placed in the pelvis.

During postoperative day one a methylene blue test was done . and blue color was observed in the drain.

Follow up after surgery and discharge from the hospital:

The investigators examined the patients clinically, made routine laboratory investigations , and for group (1) upper GI endoscopy at 2 weeks later.

Statistical analysis:

The collected data were analyzed by computer using Statistical Package of Social Services version 22 (SPSS), Data were represented in tables and graphs, Continuous Quantitative variables e.g. age were expressed as the mean ± SD \& (range), and categorical qualitative variables were expressed as absolute frequencies (number) \& relative frequencies (percentage).

Suitable statistical tests of significance were used after checked for normality. Categorical data were cross tabulated and analyzed by the Chi-square test or Fisher's Exact Test; Continuous data were evaluated by student t- test. The results were considered statistically significant when the significant probability was less than 0.05 (P < 0.05). P-value < 0.001 was considered highly statistically significant (HS), and P-value ≥ 0.05 was considered statistically insignificant (NS).

Conditions
Abdomen, Acute
Being tested
combined endoscopic & radiologic intervention for management of acute perforated peptic ulcer
Keywords
perforated peptic ulcer
Medical subject headings
Abdomen, Acute, Peptic Ulcer Perforation

What participants receive

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

  • combined endoscopic & radiologic intervention for management of acute perforated peptic ulcerProcedure or surgery

    endoscopic management using stent , clipping and sewing combined with radiologic interventional drainage was used. For duodenal ulcer only metallic stent was used due to narrow space while for gastric ulcer either stent , clipping and sewing were used due to capacious space.

Study groups in NCT05051683
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
group (1)Active comparatorcombined endoscopic \& radiologic intervention for management of acute perforated peptic ulcer
Receives: Procedure: combined endoscopic & radiologic intervention for management of acute perforated peptic ulcer
group (2)No interventionsurgical management of acute perforated peptic ulcer

What is being measured

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

  1. incidence of complications after combined endoscopic & radiologic intervention

    incidence of complications after combined endoscopic \& radiologic intervention

    Measured: within one week after the endoscopy

Secondary outcomes (1)
  1. incidence of mortality after combined endoscopic & radiologic intervention

    incidence of mortality after combined endoscopic \& radiologic intervention

    Measured: within one month after the endoscopy

Timeline

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

  1. First posted21 Sep 2021
  2. Study start30 Dec 2019
  3. Primary completion1 Aug 2021
  4. Study completion1 Sep 2021

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 N/A
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Model description
The investigators included all patients who were developed acute perforated peptic ulcer manifestations and were admitted to our hospital between December 2019 to August 2021. the calculated sample size equal 100 patients divided into two equal groups. Group (1) included 50 patients managed by combined endoscopic \& radiologic intervention , group (2) included 50 patients managed by surgery.
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
100 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT05051683
Sponsor's protocol ID
Zagazig General Surgery
Acronym
ppu
Status last verified
Sep 2021
First submitted
10 Sep 2021
Last updated
21 Sep 2021
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
No

Publications

  • Negm S, Mohamed H, Shafiq A, AbdelKader T, Ismail A, Yassin M, Mousa B, Abozaid M, Orban YA, Al Alawi M, Farag A. Combined endoscopic and radiologic intervention for management of acute perforated peptic ulcer: a randomized controlled trial. World J Emerg Surg. 2022 May 24;17(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s13017-022-00429-9.

    PubMed 35610657

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing combined endoscopic & radiologic intervention for management of acute perforated peptic ulcer in people with Abdomen, Acute, run by Zagazig University at 1 site in Egypt.

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 1 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: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 21 Sep 2021. 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 Egypt. 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?

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.

What does the primary outcome measure?

incidence of complications after combined endoscopic & radiologic intervention (time frame: within one week after the endoscopy). 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 NCT05051683, 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 21 Sep 2021.

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