Skin AbscessNCT04127071
Abscess Aspiration
A study testing Ultrasound-guided Needle Aspiration Procedure and Incision and Drainage (I&D) in people with Skin Abscess, run by Wayne State University.
Trial summary
Incision and drainage (I\&D) is the standard guideline treatment of uncomplicated skin abscesses (a boil or bumo beneath the skin). Ultrasound-guided needle aspiration (USGNA) is a minimally invasive and less painful alternative treatment, but has not been validated as non-inferior to I\&D. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Skin Abscess
- What is being tested?
- Ultrasound-guided Needle Aspiration Procedure and Incision and Drainage (I&D)
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion, Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 40 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 1 Jun 2020to 31 Dec 2020
- 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
- Non-toxic patients who present with an uncomplicated, superficial skin abscess of the head/neck, torso, extremities, and buttock will be eligible for inclusion.
- Abscesses must be verified by physical examination and bedside ultrasound.
- Patients with clinical history of diabetes mellitus and previous diagnosis of MRSA will be included.
Who cannot join
- Patients will be excluded if age less than age 18 or pregnant.
- Patient or legal guardian is unable to give consent.
- Patients with no means of clinical follow-up will be excluded.
- Complicated abscesses, defined as an abscess with associated sepsis, lymphangitis, or osteomyelitis, requiring intravenous antibiotic therapy, requiring hospital admission, previous surgical drainage at site of abscess, overlying skin lesion/fistula/ulceration with the exception of cellulitis, perforated or actively draining abscess, duration of symptoms > 5 days,1,28 and/or multiple concurrent abscesses that can be clinically regarded as chronic in nature will be excluded.
- 4) Abscess locations which will be excluded are dental, peritonsillar, anorectal, genital/inguinal, axillary if suspicion for chronic hidradenitis suppurativa, or pilonidal/intragluteal at the base of the coccyx.
- 5) Abscesses greater in size than 3x3x3 cm in any dimension will be excluded. [It has been suggested extensively in the surgical literature that an abscess diameter >3 cm should have surgical/catheter-drainage as the initial management instead of needle aspiration]2,5,15,19,27,33 [It has been reported that abscesses >3 cm in size have increased failure rates]15 6) Abscess depth is greater than maximal needle length. 7) Patients with immunosuppression from following clinical conditions will be excluded: HIV, cancer on active chemotherapy.
- 8) Patients with active history of IV drug use will be excluded.
Trial locations and contacts
No sites are listed yet.
About this study
Official title: Study Protocol for A Randomized Controlled Trial of Incision and Drainage Versus Ultrasound-Guided Needle Aspiration for Uncomplicated Skin Abscesses
Incision and drainage (I\&D) is the standard guideline treatment of uncomplicated skin abscesses (a boil or bumo beneath the skin). Ultrasound-guided needle aspiration (USGNA) is a minimally invasive and less painful alternative treatment, but has not been validated as non-inferior to I\&D. Multiple studies have shown successful treatment with USGNA of breast, face, neck, and/or trunk abscesses in combination with oral antibiotics with success rates as high as 97%.
In 2011 Gaspari et al. published a landmark article on the use of USGNA for skin abscesses. In this randomized controlled trial, USGNA and I\&D had failure rates of 74% and 20% respectively, which makes USGNA an unappealing treatment option. However, the study had several methodological issues that likely biased the results in favor of I\&D, including the following: 1) aspiration was performed with an 18-gauge needle which is often too small to aspirate thick purulence (or pus); 2) failure to fully aspirate all abscess contents was a priori defined as treatment failure rather than strictly clinical outcomes; 3) the abscess aspiration procedure was not standardized; and 4) post-intervention oral antibiotic therapy was not used on all patients.
The main hypothesis is that a modified protocol of the Gaspari et al. USGNA study to address these flaws will demonstrate a failure of USGNA comparable to I\&D for the treatment of uncomplicated skin abscesses. First, the study will standardize the use of larger 14-gauge needle on all USGNAs. Second, USGNA intervention failure need not be defined as the inability to completely aspirate all abscess cavity contents under ultrasound guidance. Previous studies have demonstrated clinical success with USGNA of skin abscesses without applying the rigid failure criteria chosen by Gaspari et al. There is only one study in the literature to suggest that there is no correlation between a small quantity of residual abscess contents post-USGNA and ultimate clinical failure, however, there are no studies which specifically address this clinical question. In this study, initial treatment failure of USGNA will be defined as the inability to aspirate any purulent material. Third, treatment outcomes in this study will be determined by clinical resolution of abscess at the study endpoint of 7-10 days, which is a well-established timeline for anticipated abscess healing and endpoint clinical follow-up. Fourth, ultrasound fellowship-trained emergency physicians will perform USGNA in standardized fashion on all enrolled patients. Lastly, post-intervention oral antibiotic with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) coverage will be provided and compliance closely monitored throughout the study.
- Conditions
- Skin Abscess
- Being tested
- Ultrasound-guided Needle Aspiration Procedure, Incision and Drainage (I&D)
- Keywords
- Ultrasound Guided Needle Aspiration, Incision and Drainage
- Medical subject headings
- Surgical Wound
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Ultrasound-guided Needle Aspiration ProcedureProcedure or surgery
The intervention under investigation utilizes an ultrasound-guided needle to less invasively drain an abscess.
Incision and Drainage (I&D)Procedure or surgery
The current standard procedure to drain an abscess of purulent material.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Surgical I&D Procedure | Active comparator | The abscess cavity will be evaluated thoroughly with ultrasonography. The site will be prepared and draped. The skin surface will be infiltrated with local anesthetic with a 25-gauge needle. The treating clinician may provide ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia for procedural analgesia at their discretion. Incision of the skin surface with a number 11-blade scalpel will be performed over the largest area of infection; the incision will be extended into the abscess cavity. A blunt instrument will then be used to break up internal loculations if present. Repeated instrumentation through the initial incision or extension of the original incision will be performed if needed. Lastly, iodoform packing will be inserted through the incision into the cavity. The decision to send the abscess contents for microbiological culture and susceptibility analysis will be at the discretion of the treating clinician. Receives: Procedure: Incision and Drainage (I&D) |
| Ultrasound-guided Needle Aspiration Procedure | Experimental | The abscess cavity will be evaluated thoroughly with US. The site will be prepared and draped. The skin surface and anticipated needle track will be infiltrated with local anesthetic with a 25g needle. The treating clinician may provide ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia for procedural analgesia at their discretion. Under direct US-guided visualization, a 14g 2in steel needle attached to a 40mL syringe will be advanced into the abscess cavity with manual negative pressure. The needle tract will be extended obliquely 2-3 cm between the skin and abscess to prevent fistulization. Purulent material will be aspirated until no further purulence can be aspirated. Multiple aspiration attempts on the initial visit will be permitted to maximally drain the abscess cavity. Additionally, irrigation of the abscess cavity with sterile saline will be permitted to break up internal loculations if present, as has reported previously for trunk and breast abscesses. Receives: Procedure: Ultrasound-guided Needle Aspiration Procedure |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Abscess cure or treatment failure
Treatment cure will be defined by the complete resolution of the abscess based on clinical signs and symptoms (no or minimal tenderness, erythema, fever, wound drainage, warmth, fluctuance, or induration) at the 7- to 10-day follow-up. Treatment failure will be defined by: fever (attributable to the infection), persistent or increased size >25% of the original abscess, requiring conversion to I\&D (USGNA intervention group) or repeat I\&D (I\&D intervention group), requiring additional antibiotics, or requiring hospital admission within 7-10 days after treatment. Participants who either withdraw from the trial or are lost to follow-up before a determination of final outcome will be classified as treatment failure.
Measured: 7-10 days
Secondary outcomes (5)
Patient Satisfaction
Patient satisfaction with each procedural intervention will be assessed, with the hypothesis that USGNA will have higher overall satisfaction rates than I\&D.
Measured: Baseline (Day 1)
Patient Comfort Level
Patient comfort for each procedural intervention will be assessed , with the hypothesis that USGNA will have lower overall pain scores compared to I\&D.
Measured: Baseline (Day 1)
Abscess Characteristics and Correlation with Treatment Failure
Assessment of whether specific abscess characteristics have any correlation to procedural failure in either intervention group.
Measured: Baseline (Day 1)
Abscess Reoccurrence
The cumulative rate of abscess recurrence will be assessed at the 21- to 30-day follow-up.
Measured: Day 21-30
Abscess Site infection
Infections involving the same site at the 21- to 30-day follow-up will be considered a recurrent infection.
Measured: Day 21-30
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted15 Oct 2019
- Study start1 Jun 2020 (estimated)
- Primary completion31 Dec 2020 (estimated)
- Study completion31 Dec 2020 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (34)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Skin AbscessStudies 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
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- A prospective, nonblinded, randomized controlled trial comparing ultrasound-guided needle aspiration to incision and drainage of uncomplicated skin abscesses.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 40 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Wayne State University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Robert Ehrman, Wayne State University
- Investigators
- Robert Ehrman, MD, Principal investigator, Wayne State University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04127071
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 1804001385
- Status last verified
- May 2020
- First submitted
- 10 Oct 2019
- Last updated
- 19 May 2020
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Barron AU, Luk S, Phelan HA, Williams BH. Do acute-care surgeons follow best practices for breast abscess management? A single-institution analysis of 325 consecutive cases. J Surg Res. 2017 Aug;216:169-171. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2017.05.013. Epub 2017 May 10.
PubMed 28807202Berna-Serna JD, Madrigal M, Berna-Serna JD. Percutaneous management of breast abscesses. An experience of 39 cases. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2004 Jan;30(1):1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2003.10.003.
PubMed 14962601Blaivas M. Ultrasound-guided breast abscess aspiration in a difficult case. Acad Emerg Med. 2001 Apr;8(4):398-401. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2001.tb02122.x.
PubMed 11282679Chandika AB, Gakwaya AM, Kiguli-Malwadde E, Chalya PL. Ultrasound Guided Needle Aspiration versus Surgical Drainage in the management of breast abscesses: a Ugandan experience. BMC Res Notes. 2012 Jan 6;5:12. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-5-12.
PubMed 22226127Christensen AF, Al-Suliman N, Nielsen KR, Vejborg I, Severinsen N, Christensen H, Nielsen MB. Ultrasound-guided drainage of breast abscesses: results in 151 patients. Br J Radiol. 2005 Mar;78(927):186-8. doi: 10.1259/bjr/26372381.
PubMed 15730981Chuck EA, Frazee BW, Lambert L, McCabe R. The benefit of empiric treatment for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Emerg Med. 2010 Jun;38(5):567-71. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.11.037. Epub 2008 Jun 2.
PubMed 18514468Dixon JM. Repeated aspiration of breast abscesses in lactating women. BMJ. 1988 Dec 10;297(6662):1517-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.297.6662.1517. No abstract available.
PubMed 3147056Dixon JM. Outpatient treatment of non-lactational breast abscesses. Br J Surg. 1992 Jan;79(1):56-7. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800790120.
PubMed 1737278Elagili F, Abdullah N, Fong L, Pei T. Aspiration of breast abscess under ultrasound guidance: outcome obtained and factors affecting success. Asian J Surg. 2007 Jan;30(1):40-4. doi: 10.1016/S1015-9584(09)60126-3.
PubMed 17337370Frazee BW, Lynn J, Charlebois ED, Lambert L, Lowery D, Perdreau-Remington F. High prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in emergency department skin and soft tissue infections. Ann Emerg Med. 2005 Mar;45(3):311-20. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2004.10.011.
PubMed 15726056Garg P, Rathee SK, Lal A. Ultrasonically guided percutaneous drainage of breast abscess. J Indian Med Assoc. 1997 Nov;95(11):584-5.
PubMed 9567588Gaspari RJ, Resop D, Mendoza M, Kang T, Blehar D. A randomized controlled trial of incision and drainage versus ultrasonographically guided needle aspiration for skin abscesses and the effect of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Ann Emerg Med. 2011 May;57(5):483-91.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.11.021. Epub 2011 Jan 15.
PubMed 21239082Giess CS, Golshan M, Flaherty K, Birdwell RL. Clinical experience with aspiration of breast abscesses based on size and etiology at an academic medical center. J Clin Ultrasound. 2014 Nov-Dec;42(9):513-21. doi: 10.1002/jcu.22191. Epub 2014 Jun 27.
PubMed 24975466Herzon FS. Needle aspiration of nonperitonsillar head and neck abscesses. A six-year experience. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1988 Nov;114(11):1312-4. doi: 10.1001/archotol.1988.01860230106035.
PubMed 3166766Hook GW, Ikeda DM. Treatment of breast abscesses with US-guided percutaneous needle drainage without indwelling catheter placement. Radiology. 1999 Nov;213(2):579-82. doi: 10.1148/radiology.213.2.r99nv25579.
PubMed 10551245
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 19 May 2020. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Study Protocol for A Randomized Controlled Trial of Incision and Drainage Versus Ultrasound-Guided Needle Aspiration for Uncomplicated Skin Abscesses
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04127071
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 1804001385
- Conditions
- Skin Abscess
- Keywords
- Ultrasound Guided Needle Aspiration, Incision and Drainage
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 40 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Wayne State UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Jun 2020 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- 31 Dec 2020 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 31 Dec 2020 (estimated)
- First posted
- 15 Oct 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.
Incision and drainage (I\&D) is the standard guideline treatment of uncomplicated skin abscesses (a boil or bumo beneath the skin). Ultrasound-guided needle aspiration (USGNA) is a minimally invasive and less painful alternative treatment, but has not been validated as non-inferior to I\&D. Multiple studies have shown successful treatment with USGNA of breast, face, neck, and/or trunk abscesses in combination with oral antibiotics with success rates as high as 97%.
In 2011 Gaspari et al. published a landmark article on the use of USGNA for skin abscesses. In this randomized controlled trial, USGNA and I\&D had failure rates of 74% and 20% respectively, which makes USGNA an unappealing treatment option. However, the study had several methodological issues that likely biased the results in favor of I\&D, including the following: 1) aspiration was performed with an 18-gauge needle which is often too small to aspirate thick purulence (or pus); 2) failure to fully aspirate all abscess contents was a priori defined as treatment failure rather than strictly clinical outcomes; 3) the abscess aspiration procedure was not standardized; and 4) post-intervention oral antibiotic therapy was not used on all patients.
The main hypothesis is that a modified protocol of the Gaspari et al. USGNA study to address these flaws will demonstrate a failure of USGNA comparable to I\&D for the treatment of uncomplicated skin abscesses. First, the study will standardize the use of larger 14-gauge needle on all USGNAs. Second, USGNA intervention failure need not be defined as the inability to completely aspirate all abscess cavity contents under ultrasound guidance. Previous studies have demonstrated clinical success with USGNA of skin abscesses without applying the rigid failure criteria chosen by Gaspari et al. There is only one study in the literature to suggest that there is no correlation between a small quantity of residual abscess contents post-USGNA and ultimate clinical failure, however, there are no studies which specifically address this clinical question. In this study, initial treatment failure of USGNA will be defined as the inability to aspirate any purulent material. Third, treatment outcomes in this study will be determined by clinical resolution of abscess at the study endpoint of 7-10 days, which is a well-established timeline for anticipated abscess healing and endpoint clinical follow-up. Fourth, ultrasound fellowship-trained emergency physicians will perform USGNA in standardized fashion on all enrolled patients. Lastly, post-intervention oral antibiotic with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) coverage will be provided and compliance closely monitored throughout the study.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- A prospective, nonblinded, randomized controlled trial comparing ultrasound-guided needle aspiration to incision and drainage of uncomplicated skin abscesses.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Surgical I&D Procedure | Active comparator | Procedure: Incision and Drainage (I&D)The abscess cavity will be evaluated thoroughly with ultrasonography. The site will be prepared and draped. The skin surface will be infiltrated with local anesthetic with a 25-gauge needle. The treating clinician may provide ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia for procedural analgesia at their discretion. Incision of the skin surface with a number 11-blade scalpel will be performed over the largest area of infection; the incision will be extended into the abscess cavity. A blunt instrument will then be used to break up internal loculations if present. Repeated instrumentation through the initial incision or extension of the original incision will be performed if needed. Lastly, iodoform packing will be inserted through the incision into the cavity. The decision to send the abscess contents for microbiological culture and susceptibility analysis will be at the discretion of the treating clinician. |
| Ultrasound-guided Needle Aspiration Procedure | Experimental | Procedure: Ultrasound-guided Needle Aspiration ProcedureThe abscess cavity will be evaluated thoroughly with US. The site will be prepared and draped. The skin surface and anticipated needle track will be infiltrated with local anesthetic with a 25g needle. The treating clinician may provide ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia for procedural analgesia at their discretion. Under direct US-guided visualization, a 14g 2in steel needle attached to a 40mL syringe will be advanced into the abscess cavity with manual negative pressure. The needle tract will be extended obliquely 2-3 cm between the skin and abscess to prevent fistulization. Purulent material will be aspirated until no further purulence can be aspirated. Multiple aspiration attempts on the initial visit will be permitted to maximally drain the abscess cavity. Additionally, irrigation of the abscess cavity with sterile saline will be permitted to break up internal loculations if present, as has reported previously for trunk and breast abscesses. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Non-toxic patients who present with an uncomplicated, superficial skin abscess of the head/neck, torso, extremities, and buttock will be eligible for inclusion.
- Abscesses must be verified by physical examination and bedside ultrasound.
- Patients with clinical history of diabetes mellitus and previous diagnosis of MRSA will be included.
Key exclusion criteria (7 listed)
- Patients will be excluded if age less than age 18 or pregnant.
- Patient or legal guardian is unable to give consent.
- Patients with no means of clinical follow-up will be excluded.
- Complicated abscesses, defined as an abscess with associated sepsis, lymphangitis, or osteomyelitis, requiring intravenous antibiotic therapy, requiring hospital admission, previous surgical drainage at site of abscess, overlying skin lesion/fistula/ulceration with the exception of cellulitis, perforated or actively draining abscess, duration of symptoms > 5 days,1,28 and/or multiple concurrent abscesses that can be clinically regarded as chronic in nature will be excluded.
- 4) Abscess locations which will be excluded are dental, peritonsillar, anorectal, genital/inguinal, axillary if suspicion for chronic hidradenitis suppurativa, or pilonidal/intragluteal at the base of the coccyx.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Ultrasound-guided Needle Aspiration ProcedureThe intervention under investigation utilizes an ultrasound-guided needle to less invasively drain an abscess. | Procedure or surgery | Ultrasound-guided Needle Aspiration Procedure |
| Incision and Drainage (I&D)The current standard procedure to drain an abscess of purulent material. | Procedure or surgery | Surgical I&D Procedure |
Primary outcome
Abscess cure or treatment failure
Time frame: 7-10 days
Treatment cure will be defined by the complete resolution of the abscess based on clinical signs and symptoms (no or minimal tenderness, erythema, fever, wound drainage, warmth, fluctuance, or induration) at the 7- to 10-day follow-up. Treatment failure will be defined by: fever (attributable to the infection), persistent or increased size >25% of the original abscess, requiring conversion to I\&D (USGNA intervention group) or repeat I\&D (I\&D intervention group), requiring additional antibiotics, or requiring hospital admission within 7-10 days after treatment. Participants who either withdraw from the trial or are lost to follow-up before a determination of final outcome will be classified as treatment failure.
5 secondary outcomes
Patient Satisfaction
Time frame: Baseline (Day 1)
Patient Comfort Level
Time frame: Baseline (Day 1)
Abscess Characteristics and Correlation with Treatment Failure
Time frame: Baseline (Day 1)
Abscess Reoccurrence
Time frame: Day 21-30
Abscess Site infection
Time frame: Day 21-30
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 19 May 2020.
- Background: PubMed 28807202Barron AU, Luk S, Phelan HA, Williams BH. Do acute-care surgeons follow best practices for breast abscess management? A single-institution analysis of 325 consecutive cases. J Surg Res. 2017 Aug;216:169-171. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2017.05.013. Epub 2017 May 10.
- Background: PubMed 14962601Berna-Serna JD, Madrigal M, Berna-Serna JD. Percutaneous management of breast abscesses. An experience of 39 cases. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2004 Jan;30(1):1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2003.10.003.
- Background: PubMed 11282679Blaivas M. Ultrasound-guided breast abscess aspiration in a difficult case. Acad Emerg Med. 2001 Apr;8(4):398-401. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2001.tb02122.x.
- Background: PubMed 22226127Chandika AB, Gakwaya AM, Kiguli-Malwadde E, Chalya PL. Ultrasound Guided Needle Aspiration versus Surgical Drainage in the management of breast abscesses: a Ugandan experience. BMC Res Notes. 2012 Jan 6;5:12. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-5-12.
- Background: PubMed 15730981Christensen AF, Al-Suliman N, Nielsen KR, Vejborg I, Severinsen N, Christensen H, Nielsen MB. Ultrasound-guided drainage of breast abscesses: results in 151 patients. Br J Radiol. 2005 Mar;78(927):186-8. doi: 10.1259/bjr/26372381.
- Background: PubMed 18514468Chuck EA, Frazee BW, Lambert L, McCabe R. The benefit of empiric treatment for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Emerg Med. 2010 Jun;38(5):567-71. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.11.037. Epub 2008 Jun 2.
- Background: PubMed 3147056Dixon JM. Repeated aspiration of breast abscesses in lactating women. BMJ. 1988 Dec 10;297(6662):1517-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.297.6662.1517. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 1737278Dixon JM. Outpatient treatment of non-lactational breast abscesses. Br J Surg. 1992 Jan;79(1):56-7. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800790120.
- Background: PubMed 17337370Elagili F, Abdullah N, Fong L, Pei T. Aspiration of breast abscess under ultrasound guidance: outcome obtained and factors affecting success. Asian J Surg. 2007 Jan;30(1):40-4. doi: 10.1016/S1015-9584(09)60126-3.
- Background: PubMed 15726056Frazee BW, Lynn J, Charlebois ED, Lambert L, Lowery D, Perdreau-Remington F. High prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in emergency department skin and soft tissue infections. Ann Emerg Med. 2005 Mar;45(3):311-20. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2004.10.011.
- Background: PubMed 9567588Garg P, Rathee SK, Lal A. Ultrasonically guided percutaneous drainage of breast abscess. J Indian Med Assoc. 1997 Nov;95(11):584-5.
- Background: PubMed 21239082Gaspari RJ, Resop D, Mendoza M, Kang T, Blehar D. A randomized controlled trial of incision and drainage versus ultrasonographically guided needle aspiration for skin abscesses and the effect of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Ann Emerg Med. 2011 May;57(5):483-91.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.11.021. Epub 2011 Jan 15.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Skin Abscess
RecruitingPhase 2
Prospective Evaluation Of High-Dose Systemic Methotrexate In Patients With Breast Cancer And Leptomeningeal Metastasis
Metastatic Breast Cancer, Leptomeningeal Disease
Not yet recruiting
Moxifloxacin Versus Clindamycin in the Management of Odontogenic Maxillofacial Infectious Processes
Odontogenic Infection, Maxillofacial Infection
Not yet recruitingPhase 2
Efficacy and Safety of Olatorepatide Versus Placebo in Adults With Moderate to Severe Hidradenitis Suppurativa Living With Overweight or Obesity
Hidradenitis Suppurativa
RecruitingObservational study
Evaluation of Non-Surgical Treatment of Breast Abscess
Breast Abscess
RecruitingPhase 4
Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole vs. Clindamycin for the Treatment of Children With Invasive MRSA Infections
Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus, Osteomyelitis Acute
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.
Robert Ehrman, MD principal investigator
Wayne State University
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Ultrasound-guided Needle Aspiration Procedure and Incision and Drainage (I&D) in people with Skin Abscess, run by Wayne State University.
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 7 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 19 May 2020. 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 Robert Ehrman, MD (3139932530, rehrman@med.wayne.edu), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Abscess cure or treatment failure (time frame: 7-10 days). 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 NCT04127071, which also lists 34 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 19 May 2020.