Angiography Combination Laparoscopy in Patients With Obscure Gastrointestinal Bleeding

February 19, 2014 updated by: KaiYun Chen, The Second People's Hospital of GuangDong Province
There were many approaches for patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). Capsule endoscopy (CE), double-balloon endoscopy, deep small-bowel spiral enteroscopy, laparoscopy, computed tomography and angiography have been recommended as investigation. However, of these techniques, the evaluation and management of patients with OGIB remains a formidable challenge. We compared the diagnostic yield and long-term outcomes of patients with OGIB randomized to angiogram combination laparoscopy or angiogram alone.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Consecutive patients who presented with OGIB to the second people's hospital of GuangDong province between January 2003 and November 2008 were recruited. This study was approved by the ethical committee of the Second people's Hospital of GuangDong Province and was designed according to the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) guidelines. All patients gave written informed consent before beginning the study. As a standard protocol, all patients presented with melena or hematochezia would receive at least 2 times upper gastrointestinal endoscopy before admission. Patients who had nondiagnostic upper GI endoscopy were also offered at least 2 times colonoscopy before admission. All gastrointestinal endoscopies were performed by experienced endoscopists (hanning Wang). OGIB were defined as patients who had nondiagnostic upper endoscopy and colonoscopy.

Patients who were < 18 years, pregnant, in moribund conditions, or with terminal malignancy were excluded. Patients with contrast allergy and impaired renal function (serum creatinine > 150 µmol/l) were also not eligible for this study. All patients were randomized to receive either mesenteric angiography alone or angiography combination laparoscopy in a 1:1 ratio. Randomization was performed computer-generated list using a randomly permuted block design. To ensure concealed randomization, the randomization code was put in opaque envelope and kept by researchers not performing angiography or angiography combination laparoscopy. Both patients and investigators were unaware of the randomization sequence.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

66

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

    • Guangdong
      • GuangZhou, Guangdong, China, 510317
        • The Second People's Hospital of Guangdong Province

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 to 75 years (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

- melena or hematochezia receive at least 2 times upper gastrointestinal endoscopy nondiagnostic upper GI endoscopy were also offered at least 2 times colonoscopy endoscopies were performed by experienced endoscopists.

Exclusion Criteria:

- < 18 years, pregnant moribund conditions terminal malignancy contrast allergy impaired renal function (serum creatinine > 150 µmol/l)

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: Diagnostic
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Quadruple

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: angiography combination laparoscopy
All patients were randomized to receive either mesenteric angiography alone or angiography combination laparoscopy in a 1:1 ratio. Randomization was performed computer-generated list using a randomly permuted block design. To ensure concealed randomization, the randomization code was put in opaque envelope and kept by researchers not performing angiography or angiography combination laparoscopy. Both patients and investigators were unaware of the randomization sequence. Those who developed rebleeding during the observation would be crossed over to the other investigation modality. Patients with negative findings on the initial assigned investigation but who developed rebleeding would undergo further investigation to localize the site of bleeding.
Those who developed rebleeding during the observation would be crossed over to the other investigation modality.
Other Names:
  • angiography
  • laparoscopy
Placebo Comparator: angiography alone
All patients were randomized to receive either mesenteric angiography alone or angiography combination laparoscopy in a 1:1 ratio. Randomization was performed computer-generated list using a randomly permuted block design. To ensure concealed randomization, the randomization code was put in opaque envelope and kept by researchers not performing angiography or angiography combination laparoscopy. Both patients and investigators were unaware of the randomization sequence.
Those who developed rebleeding during the observation would be crossed over to the other investigation modality.
Other Names:
  • angiography
  • laparoscopy

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
diagnostic yield of angiography combination laparoscopy and mesenteric angiography alone in identifying the source of bleeding
Time Frame: 5 years after initial examination
The primary outcome of this study was the diagnostic yield of angiography combination laparoscopy and mesenteric angiography alone in identifying the source of bleeding.
5 years after initial examination

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
rebleeding rates
Time Frame: follow-up to 5 years
Secondary outcome measures included long-term rebleeding rates, further hospital admissions for bleeding or anemia, further blood transfusion, and death.
follow-up to 5 years

Collaborators and Investigators

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

Investigators

  • Study Chair: kaiyun chen, phD, The Second People's Hospital of Guangdong Province

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

January 1, 2003

Primary Completion (Actual)

November 1, 2008

Study Completion (Actual)

January 1, 2014

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

February 15, 2014

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

February 19, 2014

First Posted (Estimate)

February 24, 2014

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Estimate)

February 24, 2014

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

February 19, 2014

Last Verified

January 1, 2003

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • ABT-2004-208
  • ABT2004208 (Registry Identifier: ABT-2004-208)

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 Surgical Wound

Clinical Trials on rebleeding

3
Subscribe