ClinicalTrials.gg
Enrolling by invitationNCT04814693RESOlVEUpdated Aug 8, 2025

Conventional Endoscopic Techniques Versus EndoRotor® System for Necrosectomy of Walled of Necrosis

An interventional study of EndoRotor® System (Interscope, Inc., Northbridge, MA USA), and Conventional endoscopic devices (according to standards of care) in Acute Pancreatitis and Necrosis; Pancreas, Acute (Infectious), sponsored by Erasmus Medical Center. Enrolling by invitation at 12 sites in 6 countries. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-08-08.

Sponsored by Erasmus Medical Center · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
60
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

In acute pancreatitis, approximately 20% of the cases result in severe necrotizing pancreatitis which is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Necrotizing pancreatitis is characterized by the development of an acute necrotic collection and as this collection persists beyond 4 weeks, walled off necrosis (WON) encapsulates the collection. To date, this is treated by the step-up approach, which contains percutaneous drainage and minimally invasive video assisted retroperitoneal debridement (VARD) or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided drainage followed by direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN). Different DEN techniques are available for the treatment of WON, however, there is a lack of effective endoscopic instruments to perform DEN. Recently, the first dedicated alternative to conventional DEN has been cleared for use, namely the EndoRotor® Resection System. This device is a powered mechanical debridement device intended for use in endoscopic procedures to resect and remove necrotic debris during DEN for WON. Previous (pilot and feasibility) studies showed promising results in terms of the amount of procedures, adverse events and length of hospital stay.

Therefore, aim of this study is to assess the performance of the EndoRotor, as compared to conventional endoscopic techniques, for direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN) of walled off necrosis (WON) in a randomized controlled trial.

02

Conditions studied

  • Acute Pancreatitis
  • Necrosis; Pancreas, Acute (Infectious)
03

In context

Pancreatitis

557 studies on the registry are indexed under Pancreatitis; 164 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 60 is below the median of 100 across 349 interventional studies indexed under Pancreatitis.

Browse Pancreatitis studies →

Lead sponsor

Erasmus Medical Center is the lead sponsor of 478 studies on the registry; 183 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

  • Patients with symptomatic pancreatic necrosis due to acute pancreatitis that have an indication to undergo endoscopic necrosectomy after having undergone EUS-guided drainage.

    a. Stent must be in place for a minimum of 2 days prior to the DEN procedure.

  • Patients who can tolerate repeat endoscopic procedures.
  • Subjects with the ability to understand the requirements of the study, who have provided written , and who are willing and able to return for the required follow-up assessments.
  • \< 5.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Documented pseudoaneurysm > 1 cm within the WON.
  • Subject unable or unwilling to provide .
  • Intervening gastric varices or unavoidable blood vessels within the WON access tract (visible using endoscopy or endoscopic ultrasound).
  • Coagulation disorders or anti-coagulant therapy which cannot be discontinued (aspirin allowed).
  • Any condition that in the opinion of the Investigator would create an unsafe clinical situation or stent placement that would not allow the patient to safely undergo an endoscopic procedure.
  • Pregnant or lactating women or women of who do not employ a reliable method of as judged by the Investigator, and/or are not willing to use reliable contraception for the duration of study participation.
  • Patient is enrolled in another trial that could interfere with the endpoint analyses of this trial.
  • Prior necrosectomy on existing collection.
  • Greater than 2 pancreatic / extra-pancreatic fluid collections.
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(4)

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.

ASA physical status

The anaesthetists’ scale of health before surgery: I is healthy, II has a mild illness that is under control, III a severe one, IV a severe illness that is a constant threat to life. V and VI are used for the critically ill and for organ donors.

Childbearing potential

Able to become pregnant: from the first period until menopause, unless permanently unable to through surgery (removal of the womb, or of both ovaries or both fallopian tubes).

Criteria for people of childbearing potential usually ask for a negative pregnancy test and for contraception during the study and for a time after it.

Contraception

Ways of preventing pregnancy. “Highly effective” methods fail less than 1% of the time a year when used correctly — for example an IUD or an implant.

Criteria usually say which methods count and how long to keep using them after the last dose, sometimes for male participants too. Some studies accept a partner’s vasectomy if it was confirmed successful and that person is the participant’s only sexual partner.

05

Study design

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

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Interventional arm

    Subjects randomized to the control device arm will undergo treatment with the EndoRotor System, which is a powered debridement tool intended for use in endoscopic procedures to resect and remove necrotic debris during direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN) for walled-off necrosis. The system consists of capital components including a power console, roll stand, vacuum pump, and foot control; as well as disposable components including a single-use catheter, purge kit, and suction bag. The EndoRotor System has CE-Mark 613797 and is cleared for use by the FDA in the United States.

    Device: EndoRotor® System (Interscope, Inc., Northbridge, MA USA),

  • Active comparator
    Control arm

    Subjects randomized to the control device arm will undergo conventional DEN as per the standard of care. Investigators will choose conventional DEN instruments according to their preference.

    Procedure: Conventional endoscopic devices (according to standards of care)

Interventions

  • DeviceEndoRotor® System (Interscope, Inc., Northbridge, MA USA),

    The EndoRotor System is intended for use in endoscopic procedures to resect and remove necrotic debris during DEN for WON. DEN with the EndoRotor System (study device) is considered to be standard of care therapy for patients with WON and not investigational.

  • ProcedureConventional endoscopic devices (according to standards of care)

    Endoscopic devices used to perform conventional DEN will be chosen according to standard of care and Investigator preference.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. The number of DEN procedures required to achieve resolution of WON

    1. Resolution is defined as clinical improvement of WON symptoms precluding the need for additional endoscopic or surgical interventions. 2. Clinical improvement is defined according to the criteria used in the PANTER trial and TENSION trial.8,15 "Clinical improvement" was defined as: i. Improved function of at least two organ systems (i.e. circulatory, pulmonary, renal) according to the Investigator's medical judgement within 72 hours, or; ii. At least 10% improvement of two out of three parameters of infection (i.e. C-reactive protein, leucocyte count or temperature) within 72 hours.

    Time frame: During a 6 month follow up period

Secondary outcomes

  1. Adverse events

    The occurrence of all adverse events measured from the Index Procedure through the 6 Month Post Necrosectomy Follow-up Visit

    Time frame: During a 6 month follow up period

  2. Conversion to surgery defined as number of subject that require surgical intervention as a result of DEN failure as assessed by the Investigator during the index procedure through the 6 month post necrosectomy follow-up visit

    In case of conversion to surgery, reason for conversion and type of surgical procedure

    Time frame: During a 6 month follow up period

  3. Length of hospitalization

    Length of hospitalization measured in days from the Index Procedure, including days in intensive care unit (ICU) vs. standard in-patient hospitalization

    Time frame: During a 6 month follow up period

  4. Mean total cost of care per subject

    Mean total cost of care per subject including: procedure costs, debridement devices used during the procedure, and inpatient hospital stay from the date of procedure to the date of discharge based on reimbursement fee structure expressed in US dollars, Euros or UK Pounds respectively. a. Procedure costs will be based on the cost of an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) which covers room, X-ray, sedation, personnel, and other materials.

    Time frame: During a 6 month follow up period

  5. Percent reduction in WON collection volume (cm3)

    Assessed by contrast enhanced computed tomography (CECT) scan or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (Baseline vs. completion of necrosectomy). Percent reduction in WON collection volume (cm3) as assessed by contrast enhanced computed tomography (CECT) scan or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (Baseline vs. completion of necrosectomy). 1. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) may be used for imaging only when a subject is contraindicated for MRI and CECT. 2. WON collection volume will be measured as follows: i. Length = longest diameter in cm/mm in the axial plane (left - right) ii. Width = the longest diameter in cm/mm (frontal - dorsal) in the same axial plane as the length, perpendicular on the longitudinal axis. iii. Height = longest diameter in cm/mm on coronal plane (cranial - caudal)

    Time frame: During a 6 month follow up period

  6. Procedure time

    Measured in minutes from the point of per-oral scope insertion to scope removal (scope-in / scope-out).

    Time frame: During a 6 month follow up period

  7. Debridement time

    Measured in minutes from the start of the debridement procedure to completion of the debridement procedure, including time to swap devices.

    Time frame: During a 6 month follow up period

  8. Subject Quality of Life

    Subject quality of life (QOL) as assessed by a SF-36 questionnaire performed at Baseline, Discharge, and at the 1, 3, and 6 Month Post Necrosectomy Follow-up Visits.

    Time frame: During a 6 month follow up period

  9. The number of device deficiencies, defined as any inadequacy of a medical device with respect to its identity, quality, durability, reliability, safety, or performance including malfunction, use errors, and inadequate labelingprocedure

    Assessed by the Investigator during each DEN procedure. This may include malfunctions, use error, or inadequacy in the information supplied by the manufacturer

    Time frame: During a 6 month follow up period

07

Study locations

12 sites
08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Aug 8, 2025, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04814693
Collaborators
Interscope, Inc.
Responsible party
Marco J. Bruno (Prof. Marco Bruno, Erasmus Medical Center) — Principal investigator
First posted
Mar 24, 2021
Start date
Sep 2, 2022
Primary completion
Aug 28, 2026 (estimated)
Completion
Feb 1, 2027 (estimated)
Last update
Aug 8, 2025

Study contacts

Marco Bruno, MD PhD
principal investigator · Erasmus Medical Center

Oversight

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

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

No contact was published for this record. The registry link below has the sponsor’s details.

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