Liver Transplant; ComplicationsNCT03946852
Abdominal Regional Perfusion in Donation After Cardiac Death for Multi-Organ Transplantation
A study testing Abdominal Regional Perfusion in people with Liver Transplant; Complications and Ischemia Reperfusion Injury, run by London Health Sciences Centre.
Trial summary
The main purpose of this study is to increase the pool of organs available for donation by performing ARP to recondition donation after cardiac death (DCD) organs prior to transplantation. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 75 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Liver Transplant; Complications, Ischemia Reperfusion Injury, Cirrhosis
- What is being tested?
- Abdominal Regional Perfusion
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 20 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Jun 2019to Jun 2026
- 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 to 75 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
None listed.
Who cannot join
- Inadequate social support for liver transplant
- Non-compliance with alcohol or narcotic cessation
- Evidence of uncontrolled infection
- Other untreated malignancy aside from those listed above
- Physiologic evidence of frailty based on timed up and go, grip strength, 6 minute walk test, and cognitive testing.
- Donor Criteria:
Show all 18Show fewer
- DCD donors offered via TGLN will be considered for assessment via abdominal regional perfusion based on the following parameters. These are in keeping with current criteria for abdominal organ donors.
- Age: Up to 70 years of age within the initial evaluation period, with plans to expand to 75 y/o if initial results are favourable.
- BMI: Donor BMI must be less than 30 for consideration
- DCD donation criteria: Conventional criteria for DCD donation must be met, including no expectation for viable recovery, without meeting criteria for brain death, and expressed desire by family for organ donation.
- Comorbidity: In the opinion of the on-call transplant surgeon, there should not be excessive comorbidity to exclude organ donation
- Active infection: There should be no untreated infection.
- Malignancy: Donors should have no evidence of active malignancy, or in the case of a treated malignancy there should be sufficient interval to rule out recurrence. In select cases, donors with tumors known to be indolent may be considered on a case by case basis.
- Liver transplant release Criteria:
- One of the major advantages of ARP beyond reconditioning the organ prior to cold storage and transplant, is an opportunity to assess graft function in-situ prior to transplant. The existing literature supports the use of multiple readily available laboratory tests to evaluate graft function prior to transplant. Donor labs will be drawn every 30 minutes from the perfusion circuit to evaluate organ function.
- Transaminase: Initial transaminases (AST and ALT) drawn at the start of perfusion must be less than 4 times the upper limit of normal and stay below this threshold throughout the reperfusion process to be considered for use with an absolute cut-off of 500
- Lactate: Grafts will only be used if lactate levels do not rise during perfusion, ideal organs will have a decrease in serum lactate levels by 1.11 mmol/L per hour
- Macroscopic appearance: On clinical evaluation, there should be no evidence of fibrosis or cirrhosis and organs should not have a macroscopically steatotic appearance.
Trial locations and contacts
No sites are listed yet.
About this study
The main purpose of this study is to increase the pool of organs available for donation by performing ARP to recondition donation after cardiac death (DCD) organs prior to transplantation. We will compare the outcomes of our ARP DCD liver transplants with historical data to determine the efficacy of this treatment compared to transplantation with standard DCD and donation after brain death (DBD) organs. We will also analyze biological samples from donors and recipients and compare them with outcome data in an effort to determine if any biological markers are able to predict the quality/success of the grafts.
Read the detailed description
Liver Transplantation and Limitations of DCD Transplantation:
Liver transplantation (LT) is the sole curative therapy for end stage liver disease and has emerged as the treatment of choice for hepatocellular carcinoma. Recent evidence has also demonstrated efficacy in a growing number of malignancies including intra/extra-hepatic cholangiocarcinoma, metastatic neuro-endocrine tumors, and colorectal liver metastases. Despite these advantages, LT is limited by the availability of suitable donor organs resulting in lengthened LT waitlist times. However, during this waiting period patients may deteriorate making them ineligible for LT. In the US, 16,000 patients are listed for LT, and approximately 2000 die annually while waiting for suitable organs. In 2017, over 500 Canadians were on a waiting list for LT and nearly 200 died or withdrew from the transplant list while waiting. Additionally, while LT secondary to hepatitis C is declining, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, alcoholic liver disease and transplant oncology indications are growing, increasing the overall demand for liver transplant.
One strategy to expand the donor pool has been to optimize utilization of organs from donation after cardiac death (DCD). While outcomes of DCD kidney, pancreas and lung transplants show similar patient and graft survival to donation after brain death (DBD) transplants, DCD livers have worse patient and graft survival, higher complications, and costs, along with worse quality of life. DCD liver grafts have twice the rate of early complications including primary non-function (PNF) and early allograft dysfunction (EAD). EAD is a transient condition with the potential for graft function recovery whereas PNF is a more severe complication leading to graft failure requiring emergency re-transplantation. In the long term, the use of DCD liver allografts is associated with a 10 fold increase in biliary complications, typically resulting in graft loss or death. Moreover, there is a high cost associated with complications and readmissions following LT, which can be upwards of $50,000 per patient. Studies investigating factors contributing to these costs have revealed that DCD allografts had the greatest impact on transplant costs. Consequently, initial enthusiasm for the use of DCD livers for LT has waned such that utilization is restricted to only ideal DCD livers from younger donors with short warm and cold ischemia times. Developing methodologies to reduce the complications associated with DCD organs and improve overall outcomes would have an immense impact on the lives of transplant patients while concurrently reducing costs on the healthcare system.
Abdominal Regional Perfusion and Limitations of Normothermic Machine Perfusion:
Conventional DCD recovery utilizes a rapid recovery technique which flushes abdominal organs with cold preservation solution to slow cellular metabolism and evacuate blood/clots to preserve the integrity of the microvasculature. This is preceded by the agonal phase between withdrawal of life support and cessation of cardiac function. During this period, abdominal organs are subject to warm ischemia resulting in accumulation of toxic metabolites, depletion of intracellular energy and anti-oxidant stores, leading to exacerbation of ischemia reperfusion at the time of implantation.
Abdominal Regional Perfusion (ARP) is a technique that has been developed to recondition DCD organs prior to transplantation through the perfusion of abdominal organs in-situ with re-oxygenated blood. This process reverses the effects of ischemia and hypoxia by restoring cellular energy stores and reducing oxygen free-radicals. Additionally, this period of restored abdominal perfusion also allows for functional evaluation of organ viability prior to graft use through measurement of donor serum/bile biochemistry throughout the perfusion process, thereby maximizing the yield of high quality grafts and avoiding the use of grafts that have impaired function.
In the few studies published to date, ARP has demonstrated a decrease in biliary complications by 86%, a decrease in ischemic cholangiopathy rates from 27% to 0% and a drop in EAD from 32% to 12%. Most importantly, graft loss at 30 days was only 2% in ARP compared with 12% in conventional DCD LT. Emerging evidence suggests that with ARP, transplants performed using DCD organs can result in outcomes similar to conventional DBD donors. In addition, other investigators have successfully used ARP to further expand the DCD donor pool by including donors beyond the traditional age limit of 50 years to patients greater than 75. This approach has the potential to dramatically increase the donor pool and has even been demonstrated to improve the quality of other organs used for transplant including kidney and heart transplantation.
Although normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) systems have demonstrated non-inferiority compared to static cold storage in LT by dropping perfusate lactate, improving intraoperative mean arterial pressure, reducing vasopressor requirements and reducing blood product transfusions, the majority (80%) of these donor livers were procured from DBD donors in which static cold storage continues to be the standard of care based upon three decades of favorable outcomes. There remains a paucity of data demonstrating the benefit of NMP in the setting of expanded criteria livers from donors with advanced age, steatosis, and DCD livers where ARP has been of proven benefit. In addition, ARP may also be advantageous due to its in-situ nature with preservation of the neurohormonal axis and communication with other abdominal organs. Few clinical studies have investigated the role of measurable variables in predicting ARP-DCD transplant outcomes; however, some correlation has been found between the effects of lactate levels, transaminase levels and the level of fibrosis on donor organ function. To address these unknowns, an additional goal of this study will be to identify possible mediators for the improved outcomes with abdominal-regional perfusion, and evaluate the utility of biomarkers to predict graft function.
- Conditions
- Liver Transplant; Complications, Ischemia Reperfusion Injury, Cirrhosis, Liver Cancer, Liver Metastases, End Stage Liver Disease
- Being tested
- Abdominal Regional Perfusion
- Keywords
- abdominal regional perfusion, Donation after Cardiac Death, Liver Transplantation, Ischemia Reperfusion Injury
- Medical subject headings
- Reperfusion Injury, Fibrosis, Liver Neoplasms, End Stage Liver Disease
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Abdominal Regional PerfusionDevice
Abdominal Regional Perfusion
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| ARP arm | Experimental | Patients will receive DCD after therapy after the abdominal reperfusion protocol. Receives: Device: Abdominal Regional Perfusion |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Primary non-function
Graft failure requiring re-transplantion
Measured: 1 week
Early allograft dysfunction
Transient non-functioning of the liver transplant but with usual recovery to full functioning liver
Measured: 1 week
Ischemic Cholangiopathy
Non-anastomotic biliary stricture without other identifiable etiology
Measured: 1 week to 12 months post transplant
Secondary outcomes (2)
Overall patient survival
Patient Mortality at any time post transplant
Measured: 1 and 5 years
Graft survival
Need for retransplant secondary to graft failure of any cause, or death
Measured: 5 years
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted13 May 2019
- Study startJun 2019 (estimated)
- Primary completionJun 2021 (estimated)
- Study completionJun 2026 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (5)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Liver Transplant; ComplicationsStudies 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
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- London Health Sciences Centre
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Ephraim Tang, London Health Sciences Centre
- Investigators
- Ephraim S Tang, MD, MSc, Principal investigator, Clinical FellowAnton I Skaro, MD, PhD, Principal investigator, Transplant Surgeon
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03946852
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 113712
- Status last verified
- May 2019
- First submitted
- 9 May 2019
- Last updated
- 13 May 2019
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Forner A, Reig M, Bruix J. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet. 2018 Mar 31;391(10127):1301-1314. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30010-2. Epub 2018 Jan 5.
PubMed 29307467Hessheimer AJ, Garcia-Valdecasas JC, Fondevila C. Abdominal regional in-situ perfusion in donation after circulatory determination of death donors. Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 2016 Jun;21(3):322-8. doi: 10.1097/MOT.0000000000000315.
PubMed 27050485Watson CJE, Hunt F, Messer S, Currie I, Large S, Sutherland A, Crick K, Wigmore SJ, Fear C, Cornateanu S, Randle LV, Terrace JD, Upponi S, Taylor R, Allen E, Butler AJ, Oniscu GC. In situ normothermic perfusion of livers in controlled circulatory death donation may prevent ischemic cholangiopathy and improve graft survival. Am J Transplant. 2019 Jun;19(6):1745-1758. doi: 10.1111/ajt.15241. Epub 2019 Feb 1.
PubMed 30589499Ruiz P, Gastaca M, Bustamante FJ, Ventoso A, Palomares I, Prieto M, Fernandez JR, Salvador P, Pijoan JI, Valdivieso A. Favorable Outcomes After Liver Transplantation With Normothermic Regional Perfusion From Donors After Circulatory Death: A Single-center Experience. Transplantation. 2019 May;103(5):938-943. doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000002391.
PubMed 30063694Jay CL, Lyuksemburg V, Ladner DP, Wang E, Caicedo JC, Holl JL, Abecassis MM, Skaro AI. Ischemic cholangiopathy after controlled donation after cardiac death liver transplantation: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2011 Feb;253(2):259-64. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318204e658.
PubMed 21245668
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 13 May 2019. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Abdominal Regional Perfusion in Donation After Cardiac Death for Multi-Organ Transplantation
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03946852
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 113712
- Conditions
- Liver Transplant; Complications, Ischemia Reperfusion Injury, Cirrhosis, Liver Cancer, Liver Metastases, End Stage Liver Disease
- Keywords
- abdominal regional perfusion, Donation after Cardiac Death, Liver Transplantation, Ischemia Reperfusion Injury
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- London Health Sciences CentreUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Jun 2019 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- Jun 2021 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Jun 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 13 May 2019 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The main purpose of this study is to increase the pool of organs available for donation by performing ARP to recondition donation after cardiac death (DCD) organs prior to transplantation. We will compare the outcomes of our ARP DCD liver transplants with historical data to determine the efficacy of this treatment compared to transplantation with standard DCD and donation after brain death (DBD) organs. We will also analyze biological samples from donors and recipients and compare them with outcome data in an effort to determine if any biological markers are able to predict the quality/success of the grafts.
Detailed description
Liver Transplantation and Limitations of DCD Transplantation:
Liver transplantation (LT) is the sole curative therapy for end stage liver disease and has emerged as the treatment of choice for hepatocellular carcinoma. Recent evidence has also demonstrated efficacy in a growing number of malignancies including intra/extra-hepatic cholangiocarcinoma, metastatic neuro-endocrine tumors, and colorectal liver metastases. Despite these advantages, LT is limited by the availability of suitable donor organs resulting in lengthened LT waitlist times. However, during this waiting period patients may deteriorate making them ineligible for LT. In the US, 16,000 patients are listed for LT, and approximately 2000 die annually while waiting for suitable organs. In 2017, over 500 Canadians were on a waiting list for LT and nearly 200 died or withdrew from the transplant list while waiting. Additionally, while LT secondary to hepatitis C is declining, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, alcoholic liver disease and transplant oncology indications are growing, increasing the overall demand for liver transplant.
One strategy to expand the donor pool has been to optimize utilization of organs from donation after cardiac death (DCD). While outcomes of DCD kidney, pancreas and lung transplants show similar patient and graft survival to donation after brain death (DBD) transplants, DCD livers have worse patient and graft survival, higher complications, and costs, along with worse quality of life. DCD liver grafts have twice the rate of early complications including primary non-function (PNF) and early allograft dysfunction (EAD). EAD is a transient condition with the potential for graft function recovery whereas PNF is a more severe complication leading to graft failure requiring emergency re-transplantation. In the long term, the use of DCD liver allografts is associated with a 10 fold increase in biliary complications, typically resulting in graft loss or death. Moreover, there is a high cost associated with complications and readmissions following LT, which can be upwards of $50,000 per patient. Studies investigating factors contributing to these costs have revealed that DCD allografts had the greatest impact on transplant costs. Consequently, initial enthusiasm for the use of DCD livers for LT has waned such that utilization is restricted to only ideal DCD livers from younger donors with short warm and cold ischemia times. Developing methodologies to reduce the complications associated with DCD organs and improve overall outcomes would have an immense impact on the lives of transplant patients while concurrently reducing costs on the healthcare system.
Abdominal Regional Perfusion and Limitations of Normothermic Machine Perfusion:
Conventional DCD recovery utilizes a rapid recovery technique which flushes abdominal organs with cold preservation solution to slow cellular metabolism and evacuate blood/clots to preserve the integrity of the microvasculature. This is preceded by the agonal phase between withdrawal of life support and cessation of cardiac function. During this period, abdominal organs are subject to warm ischemia resulting in accumulation of toxic metabolites, depletion of intracellular energy and anti-oxidant stores, leading to exacerbation of ischemia reperfusion at the time of implantation.
Abdominal Regional Perfusion (ARP) is a technique that has been developed to recondition DCD organs prior to transplantation through the perfusion of abdominal organs in-situ with re-oxygenated blood. This process reverses the effects of ischemia and hypoxia by restoring cellular energy stores and reducing oxygen free-radicals. Additionally, this period of restored abdominal perfusion also allows for functional evaluation of organ viability prior to graft use through measurement of donor serum/bile biochemistry throughout the perfusion process, thereby maximizing the yield of high quality grafts and avoiding the use of grafts that have impaired function.
In the few studies published to date, ARP has demonstrated a decrease in biliary complications by 86%, a decrease in ischemic cholangiopathy rates from 27% to 0% and a drop in EAD from 32% to 12%. Most importantly, graft loss at 30 days was only 2% in ARP compared with 12% in conventional DCD LT. Emerging evidence suggests that with ARP, transplants performed using DCD organs can result in outcomes similar to conventional DBD donors. In addition, other investigators have successfully used ARP to further expand the DCD donor pool by including donors beyond the traditional age limit of 50 years to patients greater than 75. This approach has the potential to dramatically increase the donor pool and has even been demonstrated to improve the quality of other organs used for transplant including kidney and heart transplantation.
Although normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) systems have demonstrated non-inferiority compared to static cold storage in LT by dropping perfusate lactate, improving intraoperative mean arterial pressure, reducing vasopressor requirements and reducing blood product transfusions, the majority (80%) of these donor livers were procured from DBD donors in which static cold storage continues to be the standard of care based upon three decades of favorable outcomes. There remains a paucity of data demonstrating the benefit of NMP in the setting of expanded criteria livers from donors with advanced age, steatosis, and DCD livers where ARP has been of proven benefit. In addition, ARP may also be advantageous due to its in-situ nature with preservation of the neurohormonal axis and communication with other abdominal organs. Few clinical studies have investigated the role of measurable variables in predicting ARP-DCD transplant outcomes; however, some correlation has been found between the effects of lactate levels, transaminase levels and the level of fibrosis on donor organ function. To address these unknowns, an additional goal of this study will be to identify possible mediators for the improved outcomes with abdominal-regional perfusion, and evaluate the utility of biomarkers to predict graft function.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| ARP arm | Experimental | Device: Abdominal Regional PerfusionPatients will receive DCD after therapy after the abdominal reperfusion protocol. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 75 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (0 listed)
Key exclusion criteria (18 listed)
- Inadequate social support for liver transplant
- Non-compliance with alcohol or narcotic cessation
- Evidence of uncontrolled infection
- Other untreated malignancy aside from those listed above
- Physiologic evidence of frailty based on timed up and go, grip strength, 6 minute walk test, and cognitive testing.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Abdominal Regional PerfusionAbdominal Regional Perfusion | Device | ARP arm |
Primary outcome
Primary non-function
Time frame: 1 week
Graft failure requiring re-transplantion
Early allograft dysfunction
Time frame: 1 week
Transient non-functioning of the liver transplant but with usual recovery to full functioning liver
Ischemic Cholangiopathy
Time frame: 1 week to 12 months post transplant
Non-anastomotic biliary stricture without other identifiable etiology
2 secondary outcomes
Overall patient survival
Time frame: 1 and 5 years
Graft survival
Time frame: 5 years
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 13 May 2019.
- Background: PubMed 29307467Forner A, Reig M, Bruix J. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet. 2018 Mar 31;391(10127):1301-1314. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30010-2. Epub 2018 Jan 5.
- Background: PubMed 27050485Hessheimer AJ, Garcia-Valdecasas JC, Fondevila C. Abdominal regional in-situ perfusion in donation after circulatory determination of death donors. Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 2016 Jun;21(3):322-8. doi: 10.1097/MOT.0000000000000315.
- Background: PubMed 30589499Watson CJE, Hunt F, Messer S, Currie I, Large S, Sutherland A, Crick K, Wigmore SJ, Fear C, Cornateanu S, Randle LV, Terrace JD, Upponi S, Taylor R, Allen E, Butler AJ, Oniscu GC. In situ normothermic perfusion of livers in controlled circulatory death donation may prevent ischemic cholangiopathy and improve graft survival. Am J Transplant. 2019 Jun;19(6):1745-1758. doi: 10.1111/ajt.15241. Epub 2019 Feb 1.
- Background: PubMed 30063694Ruiz P, Gastaca M, Bustamante FJ, Ventoso A, Palomares I, Prieto M, Fernandez JR, Salvador P, Pijoan JI, Valdivieso A. Favorable Outcomes After Liver Transplantation With Normothermic Regional Perfusion From Donors After Circulatory Death: A Single-center Experience. Transplantation. 2019 May;103(5):938-943. doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000002391.
- Background: PubMed 21245668Jay CL, Lyuksemburg V, Ladner DP, Wang E, Caicedo JC, Holl JL, Abecassis MM, Skaro AI. Ischemic cholangiopathy after controlled donation after cardiac death liver transplantation: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2011 Feb;253(2):259-64. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318204e658.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Liver Transplant; Complications
Not yet recruiting
New Biomarkers for Organ Viability Assessment During Hypothermic Machine Perfusion in Liver Transplantation: the Role of Extemporaneous Histological Examination.
Liver Transplantation (LT), Early Allograft Dysfunction
Active, not recruitingPhase 2
MT2013-31: Allo HCT for Metabolic Disorders and Severe Osteopetrosis
Mucopolysaccharidosis Disorders, Hurler Syndrome
Recruiting
Avoiding Recooling After Normothermic Machine Perfusion in Liver Transplantation
Liver Transplantation (LT), Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Prospective Observational Multimodal Neuromonitoring During High-Risk Adult Surgery
Postoperative Cognitive Complications, Delirium
Not yet recruiting
Prophylactic Norepinephrine for Prevention of Acute Kidney Injury in Living-Donor Liver Transplantation
Noradrenaline
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.
Ephraim S Tang, MD, MSc principal investigator
Clinical Fellow
Anton I Skaro, MD, PhD principal investigator
Transplant Surgeon
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Abdominal Regional Perfusion in people with Liver Transplant; Complications and Ischemia Reperfusion Injury, run by London Health Sciences Centre.
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 0 inclusion and 18 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 May 2019. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
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 Crystal Engelage, PhD (519-685-8500 ext. 35530, crystal.engelage@lhsc.on.ca), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Primary non-function (time frame: 1 week). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. 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 NCT03946852, which also lists 5 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 13 May 2019.