Reciprocating Medical Devices - a Study of a New Safety Device (RPD)

February 2, 2016 updated by: University of New Mexico

Randomized Controlled Trial of the Reciprocating Procedure Device Versus the Conventional Syringe in Syringe-and-Needle Procedures

The study design is a randomized study to directly compare the performance and the outcome of syringe and needle procedures with a standard syringe or the new reciprocating procedure device (RDP), which is a type of safety syringe. Over a 5 year period, 820 subjects who require and assent to a syringe and needle procedure for their usual and customary care will be randomized to either a conventional syringe or the RPD with one arm with and without ultrasound guidance. The RPD is designed to be safer, faster, less painful, and more effective for the patient, and the mechanics of the RPD are intended to provide the physician with better needle control, resulting in less needle trauma to patient tissues, and thus, reduced bleeding and pain for the patient. This clinical trial will address whether the RPD is indeed superior to the conventional syringe for shots, injections, and needle procedures, and whether it is a safer, less painful syringe.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

* BACKGROUND

The syringe is an ancient device designed principally to inject medications. However, because of the inherent biomechanics of the human hand and the interaction of the hand with the piston, the syringe is very stable and easily controlled the injection phase, but is extremely unstable and difficult to control in the aspiration phase. New reciprocating technology that accommodates the biomechanics of hand function has great promise of improving the stability and safety of hand-held devices, including procedure syringes.

* EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND METHODS

The study design is a randomized study to directly compare the performance and the outcome of syringe and needle procedures accomplished either with a standard syringe or the new reciprocating procedure device (RDP). Over a 5 year period, 820 subjects who require and assent to a syringe procedure for their usual and customary care will be randomized to either a conventional syringe or the reciprocating syringe. The following syringe procedures will be studied: 1) local anesthesia, 2) centesis (arthrocentesis, paracentesis, thoracentesis, amniocentesis, pericardiocentesis), 3) aspiration and puncture (aspiration of bursa, cyst, abscess, shunt, bone marrow, and other syringe aspiration procedures), 4) injection of a therapeutic or diagnostic substance into a joint, bursa, vessel, or other body structure, 5) fine needle biopsy with syringe vacuum of a mass or tissue, 6) irrigation procedures (wound, bladder, and other irrigation procedures), and 7) vascular access (introduction of a wire, catheter, or sheath into a blood vessel), and 8) with and without ultrasound guidance.

In a subject with multiple individual procedure sites, or requires multiple separate biopsies, each will be randomized between the two syringes, and each biopsy or fluid sample will be analyzed separately (as is medically appropriate). The physicians who will perform the syringe procedures will be those physicians who usually perform the syringe procedures and are credentialed to do so. Outcome data collection will occur first by one of the investigators observing the procedure and collecting the data by real time interview and by chart review including cost analysis. Outcome data will include effectiveness (preprocedural pain, pain at 2 weeks post procedure, and pain at 6 months postprocedure), procedure time, patient pain, operator satisfaction, trauma to tissues, complications, diagnostic yield, overall medical care costs and hospital stay. Retrospective review of 30 charts of the device used clinically has also been approved (2006). Analysis of data will be performed by a statistician blinded to treatment group.

*SIGNIFICANCE: The proposed study will be the first to study the clinical performance characteristics of a medical device that incorporates the new reciprocating technology designed to take advantage of the inherent biomechanical stability characteristics of the human hand. The preclinical studies presented in the preliminary data demonstrate markedly enhanced device performance characteristics, and much greater control and stability, strongly suggesting that reciprocating devices will be safer, more effective, more economical, and provide better patient outcomes.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

437

Phase

  • Not Applicable

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
    • New Mexico
      • Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States, 87131
        • University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center

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

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • A syringe and needle procedure is required for the normal customary care of the patient

Exclusion Criteria:

  • hemorrhagic diathesis,
  • use of anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents child or susceptible population

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: Single

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: 1
The intervention is the use of the reciprocating procedure device (RPD) (AVANCA Re No. 1091001) (intervention) (Arm 1) with and without ultrasound guidance (intervention) in a syringe and needle procedure in comparison to a conventional syringe (BD Ref 309604) (control, Arm 2).
Device: Reciprocating Procedure Device (RPD) - AVANCA Re No. 1091001
The RPD is a safety syringe device that is hypothesized to be safer, less painful, and more effective for patients undergoing a syringe and needle procedure (please see arm #1).
Other Names:
  • AVANCA RPD
Active Comparator: 2
The conventional syringe (BD Ref 309604) is used to performed the syringe and needle procedure and outcome (effect of procedure (pain scores at 2 weeks and 6 months compared to preprocedural pain scores), and procedural pain (pain scores during procedure) are determined) and compared to Arm 1.
Device: conventional syringe - BD Ref 309604
the conventional syringe or the RPD will be used for syringe and needle procedures performed by physicians.
Other Names:
  • syringe
  • conventional syringe
  • traditional syringe

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Pain Using VAS (Visual Analogue Pain Scale)
Time Frame: 2 weeks
0-10 cm VAS pain scale at 2 weeks compared to 0-10 cm VAS pain scale at 0 weeks where 0= no pain, and 10 = the worst pain imaginable. The difference (2 week VAS-0 week VAS) is the primary outcome measure.
2 weeks

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Aspirated Fluid Volume
Time Frame: during procedure
Aspirated fluid volume during procedure
during procedure
Adverse Outcomes (Hemorrhage, Infection, Hematoma, Extravasation)
Time Frame: during procedure, 2 weeks afterwards, and 6 months afterwards
during procedure, 2 weeks afterwards, and 6 months afterwards
Physician Satisfaction
Time Frame: during procedure

0- 10 cm visual analogue satisfaction scale (VASS)

0-10 cm VASS at 2 weeks compared to 0-10 cm VASS pain scale at 0 weeks where 0= completely dissatisfied, and 10 = completely satsified. The difference (2 week VAS-0 week VAS) is the outcome measure
during procedure

Collaborators and Investigators

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

Sponsor

University of New Mexico

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Wilmer L Sibbitt, Jr., MD, University of New Mexico

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

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

November 1, 2004

Primary Completion (Actual)

January 1, 2010

Study Completion (Actual)

August 1, 2010

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

March 21, 2008

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

March 31, 2008

First Posted (Estimate)

April 3, 2008

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Estimate)

March 2, 2016

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

February 2, 2016

Last Verified

February 1, 2016

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • HRRC 04-347 (Other Grant/Funding Number: University of New Mexico)
  • 04-347 (University of New Mexico)

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

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 Cancer

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

CROs by country

CROs in Uruguay

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

3
Subscribe