AngioDefender Versus Brachial Artery Ultrasound Imaging

January 31, 2018 updated by: Everist Genomics, Inc

Vascular Reactivity Assessment by a Novel Diagnostic Device, ANGIODEFENDER, Compared to Using Brachial Artery Ultrasound Imaging

The objective of this study is to demonstrate that the investigational device, AngioDefender, is comparable to the established procedure referred to as 'brachial artery ultrasound imaging' in their abilities to quantify flow-mediated vasodilation of the brachial artery.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

171

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

    • Ontario
      • London, Ontario, Canada, N6A 5A5
        • University of Western Ontario
    • Colorado
      • Boulder, Colorado, United States, 80303
        • University of Colorado, Boulder
    • Connecticut
      • Derby, Connecticut, United States, 06418
        • Yale University Prevention Research Center
    • Massachusetts
      • Boston, Massachusetts, United States, 02118
        • Boston University
    • Wisconsin
      • Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States, 53226
        • Medical College of Wisconsin

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

Yes

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • ECOG 0-2

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Body mass index (BMI) >50 kg/m2
  2. Mid-upper arm circumference of arm selected for FMD testing <17 cm or >40 cm
  3. Sinus arrhythmia (RR intervals vary by >50%), atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, multifocal atrial tachycardia, frequent (>1 per 10-sec strip) premature atrial or ventricular contractions (isolated, non-isolated, or alternating), documented by 12-lead ECG with rhythm strip at the time of subject screening.
  4. Clinical signs and/or symptoms of active viral or bacterial infections
  5. Resting tremor or inability to remain still for the duration of AD and BAUI testing
  6. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) at rest of >170 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at rest of ≥110 mmHg.
  7. Previous intolerable adverse reaction(s) to vascular testing using an upper extremity occlusive pneumatic cuff

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: CROSSOVER
  • Masking: TRIPLE

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
EXPERIMENTAL: AngioDefender
The AngioDefender device uses a novel, proprietary software algorithm to analyze pulse wave amplitude data collected before and after BA occlusion by a standard upper arm sphygmomanometric blood pressure (BP) cuff. The procedure is non-invasive and employs neither ultrasound nor Doppler flow analysis.
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR: Brachial Artery Ultrasound Imaging
A non-invasive procedure for detecting endothelial dysfunction by measuring the flow-mediated dilation of the brachial artery (BA) using high resolution continuous ECG-gated B-mode (2D) ultrasound imaging during reactive hyperemia, a state of transient increase in tissue blood flow that occurs following a brief period of ischemia, e.g., BA occlusion. BA diameter is measured at end-diastole, coincident with the R wave of a simultaneously recorded ECG.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Statistical equivalence of %FMD determined by AngioDefender vs brachial artery ultrasound imaging (BAUI)
Time Frame: 1 day
Deming regression analysis and Bland-Altman Plots
1 day

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Time Frame
Comparison of types and incidences of emergent adverse device effects
Time Frame: 1 day
1 day

Collaborators and Investigators

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

Investigators

  • Study Director: Peter F Lenehan, MD PhD, Everist Health

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)

August 1, 2015

Primary Completion (ACTUAL)

February 15, 2017

Study Completion (ACTUAL)

February 15, 2017

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

June 7, 2015

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

June 9, 2015

First Posted (ESTIMATE)

June 10, 2015

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (ACTUAL)

February 1, 2018

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

January 31, 2018

Last Verified

January 1, 2018

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • A-1302

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 Cardiovascular Diseases

Clinical Trials on Ultrasound

3
Subscribe