Comparison of Image Quality Between Ultra-low Dose (ULD) and Standard Dose CT Scans in Detecting Traumatic Brain Injury in the Emergency Room (ULD-CRANE 2)

January 14, 2022 updated by: Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nīmes

Head trauma is a frequent reason for consultation in the emergency room. The CT scan is the reference examination allowing rapid management of the patient. However, CT examinations are among the diagnostic examinations with the highest exposure to ionizing radiation. The study investigators have previously implemented "ultra-low dose" (ULD) acquisitions for several pathologies with an effective dose level similar to that of a standard radiographic examination. These ULD acquisitions are now routinely used in our clinical practice for explorations of the thorax, spine, pelvis and proximal femurs, extremities.

This study expands these ULD acquisitions to skull CT for detecting traumatic intracranial lesions.

The study investigators hypothesize that it would be possible to search for intracranial lesions in patients with head trauma using ULD protocols, thereby reducing the doses delivered to the patient while maintaining sufficient image quality for the diagnosis.

Study Overview

Status

Not yet recruiting

Intervention / Treatment

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Anticipated)

77

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 Contact

Study Locations

      • Nîmes, France
        • CHU de Nîmes

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:

  • Patient presenting to the emergency room of the CHU of Nîmes for a cranial trauma requiring scanning.
  • Patient with isolated head injury or polytrauma patient with head injury among others.
  • The patient or their legal representative or family member must have given their free and informed consent and signed the consent form, or the patient was included under an emergency situation
  • The patient must be a member or beneficiary of a health insurance plan

Exclusion Criteria:

  • The subject is participating in a study prohibiting participation in other studies, or is in a period of exclusion determined by a previous study
  • Patient is pregnant, parturient or breastfeeding

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: N/A
  • Interventional Model: Single Group Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Patients with head trauma
Scan with classic dose followed by ultra-low dose

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Image quality of ultra-low dose scan compared to classic dose for visualising the differentiation of grey/white matter
Time Frame: Day 0
5-point scale: unacceptable, sub-optimal, acceptable, better than average
Day 0
Image quality of ultra-low dose scan compared to classic dose for visualising lenticular nuclei
Time Frame: Day 0
5-point scale: unacceptable, sub-optimal, acceptable, better than average
Day 0
Image quality of ultra-low dose scan compared to classic dose for visualising the ventricular system
Time Frame: Day 0
5-point scale: unacceptable, sub-optimal, acceptable, better than average
Day 0
Image quality of ultra-low dose scan compared to classic dose for visualising basal cisterns
Time Frame: Day 0
5-point scale: unacceptable, sub-optimal, acceptable, better than average
Day 0
Image quality of ultra-low dose scan compared to classic dose for visualising deconvexed subarachnoid spaces
Time Frame: Day 0
5-point scale: unacceptable, sub-optimal, acceptable, better than average
Day 0

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Inter-evaluator concordance (senior versus junior) in visualizing all five structures (differentiation of grey/white matter, lenticular nuclei, ventricular system, basal cisterns, deconvexed subarachnoid spaces)
Time Frame: Day 0
Total score of the 5 Likert scores
Day 0
Presence of at least one extradural hematoma by ultra-low dose versus classical scanner
Time Frame: Day 0
Yes/no
Day 0
Presence of at least one subarachnoid hemorrhage by ultra-low dose versus classical scanner
Time Frame: Day 0
Yes/no
Day 0
Presence of at least one subdural hematoma by ultra-low dose versus classical scanner
Time Frame: Day 0
Yes/no
Day 0
Presence of at least one intraparenchymal hemorrhage by ultra-low dose versus classical scanner
Time Frame: Day 0
Yes/no
Day 0
Presence of at least one intracranial hemorrhage by ultra-low dose versus classical scanner
Time Frame: Day 0
Yes/no
Day 0
Presence of at least one cranial bone lesion by ultra-low dose versus classical scanner
Time Frame: Day 0
Yes/no
Day 0
Presence of at least one bone lesion by ultra-low dose versus classical scanner
Time Frame: Day 0
Yes/no
Day 0
Radiologist-reported image quality of ultra-low dose versus classical scanner
Time Frame: Day 0
4-point Likert scale: Interpretable, interpretable despite moderate technical issues (centering, movement, constant), entirely interpretable despite moderate technical issues (centering, movement, constant), No technical issues
Day 0
Radiologist-reported diagnostic quality of ultra-low dose versus classical scanner
Time Frame: Day 0
4-point Likert scale: unacceptable, sub-optimal, acceptable, better than average
Day 0
Radiologist-reported confidence level of ultra-low dose versus classical scanner
Time Frame: Day 0
4-point Likert scale: unacceptable, sub-optimal, acceptable, better than average
Day 0
Interpretation time of ultra-low dose versus classical scanner for a senior and junior evaluator
Time Frame: Day 0
Minutes
Day 0

Collaborators and Investigators

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

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Nicolas Menjot de Champfleur, CHU Nimes

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 (Anticipated)

March 1, 2022

Primary Completion (Anticipated)

September 1, 2022

Study Completion (Anticipated)

September 1, 2022

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

January 14, 2022

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

January 14, 2022

First Posted (Actual)

January 27, 2022

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

January 27, 2022

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

January 14, 2022

Last Verified

January 1, 2022

More Information

Terms related to this study

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

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 Penetrating Head Injury

Clinical Trials on CT scan

3
Subscribe