Systematic Machine Learning Algorithm for Rapid Thrombosis Detection (DVT-SMART)
Evaluating a New Diagnostic Strategy for Suspected DVT Consisting of Point of Care D-dimer, AI-based Prediction Model and Compression Ultrasound
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Estimated)
Enrollment
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Contact
Study Contact
- Name: Waleed Ghanima, Professor
- Phone Number: 0047 69860000
- Email: waleed.ghanima@so-hf.no
Study Contact Backup
- Name: Hans Joakim Myklebust-Hansen, Medical Doctor
- Phone Number: 0047 97501765
- Email: hans.joakim.hansen@so-hf.no
Study Locations
-
-
-
Sarpsborg, Norway, 1714
- Recruiting
- Østfold Hospital Trust
-
Contact:
- Hans J Myklebust-Hansen, M.D.
- Phone Number: 004797501765
- Email: hansjoakim_mh@outlook.com
-
Contact:
- Hans J Myklebust-Hansen, M.D.
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
- Adult
- Older Adult
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Patients referred to the ED due to suspicion of DVT
- Age ≥ 18 years
- Able to give informed consent
Exclusion Criteria:
- Ongoing use of anticoagulation for more than 72 hours
- Previous participation in the study
- Life expectancy of less than three months.
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Diagnostic
- Allocation: N/A
- Interventional Model: Single Group Assignment
- Masking: None (Open Label)
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: All participants
All participants will be treated the same way.
|
POC D-dimer will be compared to laboratory D-dimer in hospital setting and used in a machine learning model
Point of care (POC) ultrasound performed by ED physicians compared to ultrasound performed by radiologist.
POC ultrasound 3 point examination performed by ED physician will be compared with POC ultrasound full leg examination performed by ED physician.
The DSS will be compared to the usual strategy.
It will also be estimated how many participants where DVT could have been excluded without ultrasound.
Other Names:
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Safety of the new strategy (POC D-dimer, ML-based prediction model, POC CUS by emergency physician)
Time Frame: From enrollment to the end of the primary assessment period (90 days)
|
Evaluate the safety of a new strategy consisting of POC D-dimer and an ML-based prediction model followed by CUS performed by emergency physicians by comparing the new strategy's safety with our standard care by measuring the proportion of patients in whom DVT is excluded according to the new strategy but was diagnosed with DVT by standard care or in whom DVT is diagnosed within the 90-day follow up.
|
From enrollment to the end of the primary assessment period (90 days)
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Evaluate the efficiency of the new strategy
Time Frame: From enrollment to the end of the primary assessment period (90 days)
|
The proportion of patients in whom DVT can be ruled out by the ML-based prediction model with POC D-dimer compared to the efficiency of Wells score and laboratory D-dimer
|
From enrollment to the end of the primary assessment period (90 days)
|
|
Validate the safety and efficiency of the ML-based prediction model
Time Frame: From enrollment to the end of the primary assessment period (90 days)
|
Safety will be determined by the proportion of patients in whom DVT is excluded by the ML-model but diagnosed by standard care.
Efficiency will be determined by the proportion of patients in whom DVT can be excluded by the ML-based model
|
From enrollment to the end of the primary assessment period (90 days)
|
|
Evaluate concordance between CUS performed by emergency physicians and radiologists.
Time Frame: From time of enrollment until time of ultrasound examination performed by radiologist, assessed up to 48 hours.
|
Determine the proportion of false negative and false positive diagnosis of DVT in emergency physician-performed ultrasound compared with ultrasound performed by radiologists.
|
From time of enrollment until time of ultrasound examination performed by radiologist, assessed up to 48 hours.
|
|
Evaluate concordance between POC D-dimers in an ED setting and laboratory D-dimers.
Time Frame: From enrollment to the completion of D-dimer analysis, assessed up to 24 hours.
|
Compare the two POC D-dimers with the STA-Liatest D-dimer and Siemens INNOVANCE by direct comparison of the true/false positive/negative results.
|
From enrollment to the completion of D-dimer analysis, assessed up to 24 hours.
|
|
Evaluate the hypothetical time to be completed for the novel strategy compared to the standard strategy.
Time Frame: From time of enrollment until time of discharge from the emergency department either discharged from the hospital or hospitalized, assessed up to 24 hours.
|
Estimating the total management time defined as time from ED registration to ED discharge in patients evaluated according to the new strategy compared to standard care.
|
From time of enrollment until time of discharge from the emergency department either discharged from the hospital or hospitalized, assessed up to 24 hours.
|
|
Evaluate the safety of a limited ultrasound protocol (two-point and proximal) compared to full-leg CUS performed by emergency physicians and radiologists
Time Frame: 90 days after enrollment.
|
Estimating the proportion of patients in whom DVT was ruled out by the limited ultrasound protocol but was diagnosed with DVT by the whole-leg ultrasound.
|
90 days after enrollment.
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Collaborators
Collaborators
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Study Start
Primary Completion (Estimated)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (Estimated)
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
Keywords
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- 682139
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
IPD Plan Description
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.
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.