A Randomized Trial of CT Fluoroscopy-guided Targeted Autologous Blood and Fibrin Glue Patching for Treatment

May 26, 2021 updated by: Duke University

A Randomized Trial of CT Fluoroscopy-guided Targeted Autologous Blood and Fibrin Glue Patching for Treatment of Cerebrospinal Fluid Leaks in Spontaneous Intracranial Hypotension.

The goal of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) is to compare the efficacy of CT fluoroscopy-guided targeted epidural patching for treatment of imaging-confirmed spinal CSF leaks to that of a simulated procedure without patching material in patients with spontaneous intracranial hypotension.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Completed

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Detailed Description

Spontaneous intracranial hypotension (SIH) is a condition caused by non-iatrogenic spinal CSF leaks that classically presents with orthostatic headaches. These headaches, in conjunction with other presenting symptoms such as nausea, diplopia, tinnitus, and cognitive deficits, often result in profound disability. SIH is considerably underreported due to pervasive misdiagnosis. Thus, while the estimated annual incidence is reported to be 5 in 100,000, the actual number is likely considerably greater.

The current standard-of-care treatment for SIH cases that are refractory to conservative measures (i.e. bed rest and hydration) is percutaneous epidural blood patching (EBP) of the spinal CSF leak. Percutaneous EBP can be performed in several ways: 1) with or without imaging guidance, 2) targeted to a site of known or suspected CSF leak or non-targeted, and 3) with or without the addition of fibrin glue sealant.

The leading theory for the mechanism behind percutaneous EBP treatment of SIH is that it creates a durable seal of the CSF leak resulting in normalization of CSF hydrodynamics and a resultant diminution in symptoms. Fibrin glue, a sealant used for treatment of unintended durotomies during neurosurgery, is thought to improve the likelihood of a successful patch over patches containing blood alone. Therefore, imaging-guided targeted delivery of patching material containing both blood and fibrin glue directly to the site of CSF leak, a novel therapy, is presumed to be the optimal therapy. For this reason, this procedure has become standard-of-care at many tertiary-care institutions over the past several years.

Our group has extensive experience with CT fluoroscopy-guided targeted blood and fibrin glue patching of proven CSF leaks in SIH patients. However, significant uncertainty remains with regard to the efficacy of this procedure due to a paucity of outcomes data and the absence of any prospective RCTs. In fact, nearly all of the current evidence for the treatment of SIH is found in the form of retrospective chart reviews. Given the growing recognition of SIH, the fact that a known subset of patients will have spontaneous resolution of symptoms, and the absence of clear evidence to guide treatment, there is a critical need to evaluate the efficacy of targeted patching with blood and fibrin glue with a prospective RCT. Fulfilling this unmet need forms the basis for this proposal. While determining the efficacy of the other types of EBPs is also important, we aim to begin by evaluating the efficacy of the presumed optimal therapy.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
15

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Phase 2

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • United States
    • North Carolina
      • Durham, North Carolina, United States, 27710
        • Duke University

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

14 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Adult patients meeting International Classification of Headache Disorders 3rd Edition (ICHD-3) criteria for a diagnosis of SIH (Table 1) who have had a contrast-enhanced brain MRI and a myelogram confirming the presence of a CSF leak will be recruited from the Duke Radiology spine intervention clinic [25]

Exclusion Criteria:

  • recent (i.e., < 2 weeks) blood patch
  • contraindication or inability to undergo the procedure
  • inability to provide informed consent
  • expected inability to complete follow-up assessment
  • a contraindication to receiving contrast material (precluding an epidurogram)
  • contraindication to receiving fibrin glue (i.e., allergy).

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Triple

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Active Comparator: Patching of CSF Leaks with Autologous Blood and Fibrin
CT fluoroscopy-guided blood and fibrin glue patching targeted to the site of CSF leak.
Drug: TISSEEL
TISSEEL is a fibrin sealant indicated for use as an adjunct to hemostasis in adult and pediatric patients (>1 month of age) undergoing surgery when control of bleeding by conventional surgical techniques (such as suture, ligature, and cautery) is ineffective or impractical. TISSEEL is effective in heparinized patients
Placebo Comparator: Simulated Patching Procedure
Instead of injection of blood and fibrin glue patching material through the needles, an equivalent volume of preservative free sterile Elliots B solution will be injected.
Drug: TISSEEL
TISSEEL is a fibrin sealant indicated for use as an adjunct to hemostasis in adult and pediatric patients (>1 month of age) undergoing surgery when control of bleeding by conventional surgical techniques (such as suture, ligature, and cautery) is ineffective or impractical. TISSEEL is effective in heparinized patients

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Change in Median (Headache Impact Test-6) HIT-6 Score From Baseline
Time Frame: Baseline, 1 month
Absolute change in median HIT-6 score from pre-procedural baseline to 1 month post procedure for each group. The HIT-6 consists of six items: pain, social functioning, role functioning, vitality, cognitive functioning, and psychological distress. The patient answers each of the six related questions using one of the following five responses: "never", "rarely", "sometimes", "very often", or "always". These responses are summed to produce a total HIT-6 score that ranges from 36 to 78, where a higher score indicates a greater impact of headache on the daily life of the respondent.
Baseline, 1 month

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Change in Median HIT-6 Score From Baseline
Time Frame: Baseline, 2 weeks, 4 months
Absolute change in median HIT-6 score from pre-procedural baseline to 2 weeks and 4 months post procedure for each group. The HIT-6 consists of six items: pain, social functioning, role functioning, vitality, cognitive functioning, and psychological distress. The patient answers each of the six related questions using one of the following five responses: "never", "rarely", "sometimes", "very often", or "always". These responses are summed to produce a total HIT-6 score that ranges from 36 to 78, where a higher score indicates a greater impact of headache on the daily life of the respondent.
Baseline, 2 weeks, 4 months
Reduction in Median Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) Score From Baseline
Time Frame: Baseline, 2 weeks, 1 month, 4 months
The MIDAS questionnaire assesses headache-related disability. Patients answer five questions, scoring the number of days, in the past 3 months, where their activity was limited due to headache. A higher score indicates greater headache-related disability. This tool has been shown to be internally consistent, highly reliable, valid, and correlates with physicians' clinical judgment. MIDAS Scale Range: 0 - 270
Baseline, 2 weeks, 1 month, 4 months
Change in Median NRS Score From Baseline
Time Frame: Baseline, 2 weeks, 1 month, 4 months
The pain numerical rating scale (NRS) is a well-validated tool for quantitatively assessing patients' pain. The NRS asks patients to rate their current pain intensity on an 11-point scale ranging from 0 ("no pain") to 10 ("worst possible pain"). It has been found to be a valid measure of pain intensity with minimum clinically important difference noted to be a change of 2 points. The investigators will use NRS averaged over the past 24 hours for all time points in this trial. The Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) consensus statement indicates that an NRS reduction of 30% (or 2 points) is associated with a meaningful or moderately important improvement in pain. Further, IMMPACT also indicates that an NRS reduction of 50% (or 4 points) is associated with a substantial improvement in pain. The investigators will follow their consensus recommendations and explicitly report these two categories of pain relief.
Baseline, 2 weeks, 1 month, 4 months
Change in Median EQ-5D (European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions) Score From Baseline
Time Frame: Baseline, 2 weeks, 1 month, 4 months
The EQ-5D is a standardized measure of health status that provides a simple, generic measure of health for clinical appraisal. It is well-validated for health status measurement and for quality-of-life in headache. Scores on the EQ-5D were calculated using the United States 3L, time trade off (TTO) valuation technique. Scores range from 0 to 1, with 1 indicating perfect health.
Baseline, 2 weeks, 1 month, 4 months
Change in Median WPAI (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment) Score From Baseline
Time Frame: Baseline, 2 weeks, 1 month, 4 months
The WPAI is a validated instrument with good test-retest reliability used extensively in health research that quantifies impairment in daily activities and work productivity. Scores on the WPAI range from 0 - 100% with higher percentages indicating greater impact on work productivity and more severe activity impairment.
Baseline, 2 weeks, 1 month, 4 months
Change in PGIC (Patient Global Impression of Change) Score From Baseline
Time Frame: Baseline, 2 weeks, 1 month, 4 months
PGIC is a validated 7-point Likert-type scale assessing a patient's overall impression of improvement after intervention. Scores range from 1 - 7 (1: no change or worsening of condition; 2: almost the same, hardly any change at all; 3: a little better, but no noticeable change; 4: somewhat better, but the change has not made any real difference; 5: moderately better, and a slight but noticeable change; 6: better and a definite improvement that has made a real and worthwhile difference; 7: a great deal better, and a considerable improvement that has made all the difference) with higher scores indicating greater improvement.
Baseline, 2 weeks, 1 month, 4 months

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
Duke University

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
December 18, 2017

Primary Completion (Actual)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
March 19, 2020

Study Completion (Actual)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
March 19, 2020

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
September 7, 2017

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
September 7, 2017

First Posted (Actual)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
September 8, 2017

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
June 18, 2021

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
May 26, 2021

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
May 1, 2021

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • Pro00083991

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

Yes

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Cerebrospinal Fluid Leaks

Clinical Trials on TISSEEL

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings