AzTrials
AzTrials

Malignant Biliary ObstructionPETRUSNCT01686425

Percutaneous Transhepatic Cholangiography Versus Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Biliary Drainage

A study testing Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography vs. endoscopic biliary drainage in people with Malignant Biliary Obstruction, run by Universitaire Ziekenhuizen KU Leuven at 1 site in Belgium.

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 The sponsor has not verified this record for over two years, so it may be out of date.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

Patients with obstructive jaundice due to locally advanced/metastatic malignancy with dilated intrahepatic bile ducts will be recruited from the department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the University Hospital of Leuven. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Malignant Biliary Obstruction
What is being tested?
Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography vs. endoscopic biliary drainage
Type of treatment
Surgery or procedure
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
60 participants
Where
1 siteBelgium
Study dates
Jul 2012to Dec 2014
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
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Patients older than 18 years presenting with malignant obstructive jaundice
  • Locally advanced primary or metastatic malignancy involving the biliary tract
  • Patients in whom an ERCP have failed or where an ERCP is not possible due to surgically altered anatomy (eg. Post-Whipple).

Who cannot join

  • Resectable biliary tract malignancy with curative intent

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Schalk van der Merwe, MD, PhD contact

+32 16 34 42 99

schalk.vandermerwe@uzleuven.be

Belgium1 site, 1 recruiting
  • UZ Leuven

    Leuven, 3000

    Schalk van der Merwe, MD, PhD, +32 16 34 42 99, schalk.vandermerwe@uzleuven.be

    Frederik Nevens, MD, PhD, +32 16 34 42 99, frederik.nevens@uzleuven.be

    Recruiting

Other trials in Belgium

About this study

Official title: Percutaneous Transhepatic Cholangiography Versus Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Biliary Drainage in Advanced Biliary Tract Malignancy That Failed ERCP (PETRUS Study): A Randomized Pilot Study

Patients with obstructive jaundice due to locally advanced/metastatic malignancy with dilated intrahepatic bile ducts will be recruited from the department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the University Hospital of Leuven.

This population will have failed ERCP or will be considered when ERCP is not possible due to altered surgical anatomy.

Patients will be randomized to either PTC or EUS guided biliary drainage

Read the detailed description

Background:

Advanced biliary tract malignancy complicated by obstructive jaundice has been traditionally managed by palliative stent placement at ERCP. In 3-12% of patients with advanced disease tumour involvement of the small bowel or peri-ampullary region may preclude the use of ERCP necessitating percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) or surgery1. However these techniques have been associated with high complication rates and significant morbidity2. PTBD necessitates traversing the parietal and visceral peritoneum causing a potential for a bile leak and bleeding into the peritoneal cavity. This procedure is also associated with significant pain, lengthy hospital stays and an overall reduction in quality of life, and even procedure related mortality. Indeed the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) quality improvements guidelines established the procedural risk of severe major complications including sepsis, bleeding and procedural related death at 2.5% and less severe complications including pain and prolonged hospital admissions at 20%.

In recent years various groups have described endoscopic ultrasound guided access of the left system allowing placement of metal or plastic stents either across the distal stricture or deploying the stent in the stomach (hepatico-gastrostomy), with high technical success3. Retrograde cannulation normally performed from the duodenal bulb allows access to the biliary tract above a malignant stricture with the intent to either pass a guide wire through the papilla and then perform a rendezvous procedure, or the placement of a covered metal stent into the stomach (choledochoenterostomy)10. Cannulation of a dilated segment 2 or 3 sectoral duct is also possible from the proximal stomach where the endoscopist performs all procedures in an antegrade fashion5. Currently these procedures are selectively performed in centres by expert endoscopists from mainly tertiary care academic expert centres including in Leuven. Collectively EUS biliary drainage is technically successful in 75-92% of cases, however reports of bile leaking and peritonitis have been described5.

Various obstacles however still exist to extend the general applicability of this technique outside expert centres. Firstly, no randomized control trials exist comparing the safety and efficacy of EUS biliary access to Percutaneous Transhepatic Cholangiography (PTC). Secondly, current endoscopic techniques utilize standard endoscopic accessories not specifically developed to be utilized within the biliary system when advanced through the gastric wall. Thirdly, specific EUS strategies are needed to prevent or reduce complications associated with percutaneous approaches.

Concept and preliminary experimental data

Hypothesis

Based on the literature we hypothesize that:

  • Endoscopic ultrasound guided biliary drainage is more effective than percutaneous biliary drainage in the management of obstructive jaundice
  • EUS guided biliary drainage is associated with a reduced incidence of major (bile peritonitis, procedure related mortality, hematobilia) and minor (abdominal pain, prolonged hospital stay) complications.
  • EUS guided biliary drainage is more cost effective compared to percutaneous biliary drainage

Aims of proposed research

Based on the current literature we propose a randomized pilot study assessing the following specific end points

  • EUS biliary drainage is as effective as percutaneous biliary drainage in achieving resolution of cholestasis
  • EUS biliary drainage is not associated with an increased risk of complications compared to percutaneous biliary drainage.

Methodology

Study population. Patients with obstructive jaundice due to locally advanced/metastatic malignancy with dilated intrahepatic bile ducts will be recruited from the department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the University Hospital of Leuven.

This population will have failed ERCP or will be considered when ERCP is not possible due to altered surgical anatomy.

Patients will be randomized to either PTC or EUS guided biliary drainage

Inclusion criteria:

  • Patients older than 18 years presenting with malignant obstructive jaundice
  • Locally advanced primary or metastatic malignancy involving the biliary tract
  • Patients in whom an ERCP have failed or where an ERCP is not possible due to surgically altered anatomy (eg. Post-Whipple).

Exclusion criteria:

  • Resectable biliary tract malignancy with curative intent

Endoscopic method

Linear array endoscopic ultrasound (Pentax, Pentax Hitachi, Montvale, NJ) will be used to identify the dilated left system. The Doppler mode was used to differentiate intrahepatic bile ducts from portal and hepatic vein branches. A 19G needle (Echo-19, Cook, Limerick, Ireland) will be used to puncture a peripherally located dilated segment 2 or 3 duct under EUS guidance. Under fluoroscopic control a cholangiogram will be obtained and a standard 0.035 guide-wire (Hydra Jag wire, Boston Scientific, Natick, MA Boston Scientific) will be advanced into the biliary system. Next a 6Fr cystotome (Endoflex, Voerde, Germany) will be used to create a trans-gastric tract through the liver parenchyma to the dilated biliary system. The guidewire will be manipulated across the stricture into the duodenal lumen. A Hurricane biliary dilation balloon 4cm x4mm (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA Boston Scientific) will be advanced through the tract and used to dilate the common bile duct stricture without balloon dilation at the level of the gastric wall liver interface. A 10mmx 80mm uncovered self expandable metallic stent (SEMS) will be advanced and deployed under fluoroscopy across the papilla and past the duodenal obstruction when present.

In patients were the left ductal system is not dilated, biliary access will be obtained from the duodenal bulb and a covered metal stent will be deployed in the stomach (choledocho-enterostomy).

In patients with duodenal obstruction a Wallstent will be placed at the same session as part of standard of care.

Novel research perspectives and expected outcomes

  • Our research will address a very difficult clinical problem in an unique way: comparing the standard of care biliary drainage procedure (PTC) to EUS guided biliary drainage.
  • We expect to demonstrate that EUS guided biliary drainage is as effective as PTC
  • We also expect to show that EUS guided biliary drainage is associated with a reduced incidence of complications and reduced hospital stay.

Study endpoints

  • Primary endpoints
  • Pain: Post-procedural pain as measured by visual analogue score (VAS) at 2, 24, and 72 hours following the procedures
  • Biochemical changes: Bilirubin decrease at 2 and 4 weeks
  • Secondary endpoints
  • Major complications including bile leak, bleeding, sepsis or death
  • Duration of procedures in minutes
  • Length of ICU and hospital stay
  • Minor complications

Statistics power calculations It is assumed that 50% of the patients will experience prolonged pain after PTC defined as pain lasting more than 48 hours and requiring analgesics. 48 patients in total (24 per group) are then needed to detect with 80% power a difference with EUS, expecting 10% of the patients having prolonged pain after EUS. The sample size calculation is based on a two-sided Fisher's Exact test (with alpha=5%). To compensate for potential dropout, 7 additional patients in total will be recruited. Therefor the sample size will comprise of 55 patients. Exact 95% confidence intervals will be calculated for the proportion major complications in both groups. Proportions will be compared using a Fisher's Exact test. A Mann-Whitney U test will be used to compare the actual VAS scores and changes in VAS scores between groups. A log-rank test will be used to compare the length of hospital stay (LOS), censoring potential deceased patients at a value exceeding the highest observed LOS.

P-values smaller than 0.05 will be considered significant. Statistical analyses will be performed using SAS software, version 9.2 of the SAS System for Windowsld be given when defining the endpoints.

Investigators:

Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hepatology: Prof. Frederik Nevens, Prof. Werner van Steenbergen, Prof. Chris Verslype, Prof. Wim Laleman, Prof. David Cassiman, Prof. Schalk van der Merwe

Department of Interventional radiology:

Prof. Geert Maleux, Dr. Sam Heye, Dr. Johan Vaninbroukx

Being tested
Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography vs. endoscopic biliary drainage
Keywords
Cholestasis, Malignancy, ERCP, PTC, EUS-BD
Medical subject headings
Cholestasis, Neoplasms

What participants receive

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

  • Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography vs. endoscopic biliary drainageProcedure or surgery

    Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography biliary drainage is compared tot endoscopic biliary drainage in the management of malignant biliary obstruction not amenable to ERCP

Study groups in NCT01686425
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Percutaneous Transhepatic cholangiographyActive comparatorNot described
Receives: Procedure: Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography vs. endoscopic biliary drainage
Endoscopic Ultrasound guided biliary drainageActive comparatorNot described
Receives: Procedure: Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography vs. endoscopic biliary drainage

What is being measured

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

  1. Pain: Post-procedural pain as measured by visual analogue score (VAS) at 2, 24, and 72 hours following the procedures

    • Primary endpoints
    • Pain: Post-procedural pain as measured by visual analogue score (VAS) at 2, 24, and 72 hours following the procedures
    • Biochemical changes: Bilirubin decrease at 2 and 4 weeks

    Measured: 72 hours

Secondary outcomes (1)
  1. Major complications including bile leak, bleeding, sepsis or death

    • Secondary endpoints
    • Major complications including bile leak, bleeding, sepsis or death
    • Duration of procedures
    • Length of ICU stay
    • Minor complications

    Measured: Participants will be followed for the duration of their hospital stay and for up to 4 weeks. In addition patients will be followed up to death or for a maximum period of 1 year following the procedure

Timeline

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

  1. First posted18 Sep 2012 (estimated)
  2. Study startJul 2012
  3. Primary completionJul 2014 (estimated)
  4. Study completionDec 2014 (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 N/A
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Factorial
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
60 participants (estimated)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT01686425
Sponsor's protocol ID
ML8383
Acronym
PETRUS
Status last verified
Jun 2013
First submitted
10 Jul 2012
Last updated
13 Jun 2013
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography vs. endoscopic biliary drainage in people with Malignant Biliary Obstruction, run by Universitaire Ziekenhuizen KU Leuven at 1 site in Belgium.

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 3 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 13 Jun 2013. 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 Belgium. 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?

Results are not available in the source record.

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

Contact Schalk van der Merwe, MD, PhD (+32 16 34 42 99, schalk.vandermerwe@uzleuven.be), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Pain: Post-procedural pain as measured by visual analogue score (VAS) at 2, 24, and 72 hours following the procedures (time frame: 72 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 13 Jun 2013.

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