ClinicalTrials.gg
Status unknownNCT02816229Updated Oct 12, 2018

Endobronchial Valves in Inoperable Patients With Haemoptysis

An interventional study of Insertion of endobronchial valve in Haemoptysis, sponsored by University of Stellenbosch. Status unknown. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2018-10-12.

Sponsored by University of Stellenbosch · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

The sponsor has not verified this record recently (last verified Oct 2018), so the status shown — last known as Not yet recruiting — may be out of date.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
20
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Massive haemoptysis is a life-threatening condition which is commonly seen in patients who have previously had pulmonary tuberculosis. Various treatment options exist such as bronchial artery embolisation (BAE) or surgical resection of the affect lung region. However, BAE is not considered curative as there is often recurrence of haemoptysis. Furthermore, not all patients will be deemed suitable for surgical resection, leaving them with very few treatment options. A possible alternative intervention is the insertion of an endobronchial valve (EBV). It is speculated that blood will collect distal to the one way valve and a thrombus will be formed. There is currently no data describing the use of EBV for the treatment of massive haemoptysis. This RCT aims to explore the use and efficacy of EBV in the management of massive haemoptysis.

Read the detailed description

Massive haemoptysis commonly occurs in patients who have had tuberculosis. While surgical resection of the affected lung segment can be curative, a large majority of patients may not qualify for surgical intervention for a number of reasons. This leaves them with few options to manage their haemoptysis.

Many patients at Tygerberg Hospital have severely reduced cardiopulmonary reserves secondary to multiple episodes of pulmonary Tuberculosis and often present either a unilateral largely destroyed lung or bilateral disease, which make them unsuitable for surgery. For these unfortunate patients who do not qualify for surgery or repeat BAE, practically no treatment options exist, and a significant proportion die in hospital or after discharge from a recurrent episode of massive haemoptysis. For these patients the only option may be to block the bleeding bronchus (identified by the previous BAE or during bronchoscopy) with a balloon catheter (Fogarty catheter) or placement of haemostatic gauze or gel. All these procedures are, however, of limited benefit. Using a blocking device which could be deployed and left in place permanently or be removed if needed has become a new therapeutic concept. Dutau and colleagues reported the successful use of the endoscopic placement of a silicone Spigot in a 39-year-old-woman with massive haemoptysis which prevented alveolar inundation preceding and during the time of bronchial artery embolisation.

Our institution has a long standing experience in massive haemoptysis, clinically and scientifically. We evaluate about 80-100 patients with life threatening haemoptysis a year. Furthermore, we were involved in an early emphysema trial using the IBVEBV® (Intra-Bronchial Valve) of Spiration and have, therefore, the necessary experience with the valve implantation technique.

No data are available regarding the potential clinical use of endobronchial valves in patients with recurrence of haemoptysis after BAE in patients who are not candidate for surgery or BAE.

This study aims to investigate the use, therapeutic benefit and safety of IBV Zephyr® valves in inoperable patients with haemoptysis not responding to BAE or in cases where BAE is not considered feasible.

This is a prospective randomised intervention-control study, with patients allocated to either best medical care (control) or endobronchial valve (intervention) groups. The valves will be inserted via flexible bronchoscopy into the affected lung regions. The primary outcome measure is the time to resolution of massive haemoptysis. Secondary outcomes will include physical and lung function and the occurrence of complications resulting from the insertion of the EBV.

Statistical analysis will be performed blinded to patient grouping by a statistician, and both univariate and multivariate analyses will be performed using the appropriate parametric and non-parametric tests. Appropriate tests for categorical data (e.g. Chi-squared test) and continuous data (e.g. Kruskal-Wallis, and ANOVA) will be used. Logistic and linear regression modelling will be used for certain outcomes, and multivariate analysis will be performed using stepwise regression modelling and full modelling where appropriate.

02

Conditions studied

  • Haemoptysis

Keywords

  • Haemoptysis
  • Aspergillus
  • Endobronchial valve
  • Interventional pulmonology
  • Tuberculosis
03

In context

Hemoptysis

37 studies on the registry are indexed under Hemoptysis; 6 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 20 is below the median of 73 across 20 interventional studies indexed under Hemoptysis.

Browse Hemoptysis studies →

Lead sponsor

University of Stellenbosch is the lead sponsor of 34 studies on the registry; 3 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • ≥18 years of age
  • Written
  • Current or previously documented admission to hospital with large volume haemoptysis (>200ml/24hour); or haemoptysis with haemodynamic compromise (SBP \< 100mmHg for 15 minutes) or requiring fluid resuscitation; haemoptysis requiring intubation or deemed life-threatening by attending clinicians.
  • The cause of haemoptysis must be due to severe underlying lung destruction/ bronchiectasis, post-tuberculous lung damage or the presence of an aspergillomata.
  • Primary bronchial artery embolisation not considered technically possible* or failed (defined as ongoing haemoptysis of at least 100 ml per day for 7 days or more, cumulative blood loss of > 200 ml / 24 hours, or any volume resulting in a systolic blood pressure \< 100 mmHg for 15 minutes or necessitating resuscitation with vasopressors during a period of 30 days after BAE) and repeat BAE not considered feasible*
  • Lung resection not possible because of poor cardiopulmonary reserves (as defined by the current ERS/ESTS clinical guidelines28, independently reviewed by a team of consisting of a thoracic surgeon, pulmonologist and anaesthesiologist who will need to in absolute agreement on inoperability and/or lack of cardiopulmonary reserve)

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Haemodynamic instability (defined as SBP\< 90mmHg requiring ongoing fluid resuscitation or inotropic support)
  • Patients necessitating mechanical ventilation because of respiratory failure or airway management
  • Active tuberculosis
  • High clinical suspicion of lung carcinoma
  • Any other condition, which in the opinion of the investigators, places the subject at increased risk for bronchoscopy and EBV placement.
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(1)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
20 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Insertion of endobronchial valve

    Patients in this group will have one or more EBV inserted into the relevant lung regions to manage the haemoptysis via flexible bronchoscopy.

    Device: Insertion of endobronchial valve

  • No intervention
    Best care

    Patients will receive best medical care.

Interventions

  • DeviceInsertion of endobronchial valve

    One or more endobronchial one- way valves will be inserted into the appropriate lung regions

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Rate of termination of haemoptysis

    Time frame: 1 year

Secondary outcomes

  1. Time to recurrence of haemoptysis

    Time frame: 1 year

  2. Improvement in exercise performance

    Time frame: 1 year

  3. Improvement in lung function

    Time frame: 1 year

  4. Recurrence of infection/tuberculsis

    Time frame: 1 year

  5. EBV related complications

    Time frame: 1 year

07

Study locations

No study locations are listed for this record.

08

References and documents

Publications

  • van den Heuvel MM, Els Z, Koegelenberg CF, Naidu KM, Bolliger CT, Diacon AH. Risk factors for recurrence of haemoptysis following bronchial artery embolisation for life-threatening haemoptysis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2007 Aug;11(8):909-14. PubMed 17705959 ↗
  • Gross AM, Diacon AH, van den Heuvel MM, Janse van Rensburg J, Harris D, Bolliger CT. Management of life-threatening haemoptysis in an area of high tuberculosis incidence. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2009 Jul;13(7):875-80. Erratum In: Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2009 Dec;13(12):1579. van Rensburg, J [corrected to Janse van Rensburg, J]. PubMed 19555538 ↗
  • Freitag L, Tekolf E, Stamatis G, Montag M, Greschuchna D. Three years experience with a new balloon catheter for the management of haemoptysis. Eur Respir J. 1994 Nov;7(11):2033-7. PubMed 7875278 ↗
  • Dutau H, Palot A, Haas A, Decamps I, Durieux O. Endobronchial embolization with a silicone spigot as a temporary treatment for massive hemoptysis: a new bronchoscopic approach of the disease. Respiration. 2006;73(6):830-2. doi: 10.1159/000092954. Epub 2006 Apr 21. PubMed 16636529 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reached

Start is estimated for Jan 2019; primary completion for Dec 2019, 11 months later.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Jun 23, 2016
First posted
Jun 28, 2016
StartEst.
Jan 2019
Primary completionEst.
Dec 2019
CompletionEst.
Mar 2020
Last update
Oct 12, 2018
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Oct 12, 2018, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT02816229
Lead sponsor
University of Stellenbosch
Responsible party
Dr Brian Allwood (Dr, University of Stellenbosch) — Principal investigator
First posted
Jun 28, 2016
Start date
Jan 2019 (estimated)
Primary completion
Dec 2019 (estimated)
Completion
Mar 2020 (estimated)
Last update
Oct 12, 2018

Study contacts

Brian Allwood, MBChB, PhD
Contact
brianallwood@sun.ac.za
Brian Allwood, MBChB, PhD
study chair · University of Stellenbosch

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is status unknown, as verified in Oct 2018. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion