Does Transesophageal Echocardiography Along With an Orogastric Tube Improve the Image Quality Intraoperatively?
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Enrollment
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
Michigan
-
Detroit, Michigan, United States, 48202
- HFHS
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- adult cardiac surgery or liver transplant surgery
Exclusion Criteria:
- TEE with significant wall motion abnormality or TEE contraindicated patients
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Diagnostic
- Allocation: Non-Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: Triple
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
No Intervention: TEE image before suction
Suction orogastric tube which is attached to TEE probe
|
|
|
Experimental: TEE image after suction
Suction orogastric tube which is attached to TEE probe
|
Suction orogastric tube which is attached to TEE probe
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Image Quality Assessment Method#1: Difference in Likert Scale Before and After Suctioning
Time Frame: TEE image sets were acquired after general anesthesia induction (before suction) and after 10minutes (after suction), and the outcome was the difference in image quality. In 6-8 months, investigator C did the same analysis on the same images in one day.
|
Difference in image quality assessment by Likert scale before/after suctioning, by assessing quality of images stored before/after suctioning.
Investigators categorized the quality of all acquired images on a numeric scale (the higher number means higher image quality) based on each investigator's impression (1: very poor, 2: poor, 3: acceptable, 4: good, and 5: very good).
Image quality improvement was determined by increased number.
Three investigators (A, B, C) assessed the quality of all TEE image sets (i.e.
before and after suctioning) post hoc.
The acquired numeric scales were combined, and compared before and after suctioning, and calculated how much percentage of patients had improved image quality (i.e. increase in numeric scale), same quality (i.e.
same numeric scale), and worsened image quality (i.e.
decrease in numeric scale)
|
TEE image sets were acquired after general anesthesia induction (before suction) and after 10minutes (after suction), and the outcome was the difference in image quality. In 6-8 months, investigator C did the same analysis on the same images in one day.
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Reproducibility of the Left Ventricular Fraction Area Change (LV FAC) (Inter-observer)
Time Frame: Images are acquired after general anesthesia induction (before suctioning) and after 10min (after suctioning)
|
The reproducibility of the LV FAC was assessed, assuming that better image quality would yield better LV FAC reproducibility.
Three investigators (A, B, and C) assessed the quality of tall TEE image sets (i.e.
before and after suction) post oc.
These image sets were combined, and assessment was done for each group (i.e.
before and after suctioning)
|
Images are acquired after general anesthesia induction (before suctioning) and after 10min (after suctioning)
|
|
Reproducibility of the Left Ventricular Fraction Area Change (LV FAC) (Intra-observer)
Time Frame: 6-8 months after initial images obtained during surgery
|
Investigator C assess all the image sets in one day again after 6-8 months to determine if there is intra-observer variability with the initial assessment of image quality, All investigators are blinded to which images are obtained before or after suction
|
6-8 months after initial images obtained during surgery
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Investigators
Investigators
- Study Director: Donald Penning, MD, HFHS
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Study Start
Primary Completion (Actual)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (Actual)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- 11078
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
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 TEE Image Quality
-
NCT03425032CompletedComputed Tomography | Image Quality
-
NCT02519920UnknownImage Quality | Skin Discoloration
-
NCT01042171CompletedChange of Image Quality of CLE
-
NCT05351372CompletedEvaluate CBCT Protocols in Subjective Image Quality
-
NCT04256967CompletedQuality of Life | Physical Activity | Dietary Habits | Body Image Disturbance | Body Image
-
NCT07368036Not yet recruitingImage Quality | MR Multinuclear | Device Convenience | Device Stability | System Safety
-
NCT03180944CompletedImage Quality | Mucosal Irritation
-
NCT03180970UnknownImage Quality of Early Esophageal Squamous Neoplasia | Endoscopists'Subjective Assessments