Study of the NDO Endoscopic Plication System For the Treatment of Symptomatic Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.|
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00587522|
Recruitment Status : Completed
First Posted : January 7, 2008
Last Update Posted : January 7, 2008
The purpose of this prospective, multicenter study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic full-thickness plication for the treatment of symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux.
Sixty-four patients were enrolled and underwent endoscopic full-thickness plication. All patients received a single implant/plication. No repeat plication procedures were performed.
Primary efficacy in this study was measured by the percent reduction in post-procedure GERD symptoms as evidenced by analysis of the GERD-HRQL (Health Related Quality of Life) questionnaire. Secondary efficacy outcomes included post-procedure reduction in anti-secretory therapy, improvement in quality of life questionnaires, reduction in distal esophageal acid exposure, and improvement in esophageal manometry. Patient follow-up assessments were completed at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months post treatment.
|Condition or disease||Intervention/treatment||Phase|
|GERD||Device: NDO Full-thickness Plicator||Not Applicable|
The primary objective for this study was to measure the reduction in GERD symptoms as evidenced by analysis of the GERD-HRQL questionnaire at 3-months post-procedure with an objective of achieving a 50% or greater improvement. The trial was powered to detect a 50% reduction in mean GERD-HRQL at 3-months using a one-sided t-test with an α of .05 and a β level of .10, testing versus the equality of means. The calculation referenced above includes the added assumption that the standard deviation will be no more than 20 percent. The null hypothesis stated that the mean percent reduction in GERD symptoms was less than or equal to 50 percent at 3-months versus the alternate hypothesis that it was greater. The device treatment was considered a success if the statistical test rejected the null hypothesis at a one-sided p-value of 0.05 or less. Primary endpoint success was thus related to the statistical conclusion that the mean percent reduction was greater than 50%. A one-sided 95 percent confidence interval was constructed for the percent reduction in GERD symptoms. In order to assess the data with an "Intent to Treat" spirit, the number of patients who achieved a 50% reduction was analyzed as a fraction of the total number of patients who received the treatment.
For secondary endpoint measures, statistical tests for medians were based on a Wilcoxon sign rank test of the percent improvement in a given study measure. This was based on the paired patient data of the pre-treatment scores versus the 6-month scores. The issue of multiple statistical tests of hypothesis being performed on data arising from individual patients was addressed in the following way. The comparison of GERD-HRQL scores was taken as the main results for which no correction of significance level was necessary. To recognize multiple testing using the method of Bonferroni, statistical significance was claimed for the secondary results only if, for a single test, the nominal p-value was <.01. Given that some patients, during the course of the clinical study, were lost to follow-up, all outcomes were examined using the method of last visit carried forward, provided that at least one follow-up visit had been completed. It should be noted that using this method had little impact on the results; as compared to an analysis of the data of just those patients who completed follow-up, excluding those who missed the visit or were lost to follow up. However, this method was employed to account for those patients who were lost to follow-up, with specific consideration to those who had been lost to follow-up due to unsatisfactory treatment effect. Means and standard deviations are reported using the mean (SD) format, medians and interquartile ranges are reported using the median (IQR) format.
|Study Type :||Interventional (Clinical Trial)|
|Actual Enrollment :||64 participants|
|Intervention Model:||Single Group Assignment|
|Masking:||None (Open Label)|
|Official Title:||Study of the NDO Endoscopic Plication System For the Treatment of Symptomatic Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease|
|Study Start Date :||August 2001|
|Actual Primary Completion Date :||May 2003|
|Actual Study Completion Date :||May 2003|
NDO Full-thickness Plicator Procedure
Device: NDO Full-thickness Plicator
The Plicator and gastroscope assembly were passed into the stomach. The stomach was distended with air. The gastroscope was advanced and retroflexed so that the instrument could be visualized and accurately positioned. The Plicator was retroflexed to within 1cm below the GE junction, and the helical tissue retractor was advanced deeply into the gastric wall. The gastric wall was retracted into the Plicator instrument arms. The arms were then closed, and the suture-implant was deployed to secure the full-thickness plication. The tissue retractor is then disengaged and the suture-implant released from the instrument.
- Percent reduction in GERD symptoms as evidenced by analysis of the GERD-Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL)questionnaire. [ Time Frame: 3, 6 and 12 months ]
- GERD Medication Use [ Time Frame: 3, 6 and 12 months ]
- Improvement in Quality of Life Questionnaires (GERD-HRQL, Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale-GSRS and SF-36) [ Time Frame: 3, 6 and 12 months ]
- Esophageal acid exposure [ Time Frame: 3 and 6 months ]
- Esophageal manometry [ Time Frame: 3 months ]
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT00587522
|United States, California|
|Cedars Sinai Medical Center|
|Los Angeles, California, United States, 90048|
|United States, Massachusetts|
|Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center|
|Boston, Massachusetts, United States, 02115|
|United States, Minnesota|
|Rochester, Minnesota, United States, 55905|
|United States, New Hampshire|
|Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center|
|Lebanon, New Hampshire, United States, 03756|
|United States, South Carolina|
|Medical University of South Carolina|
|Charleston, South Carolina, United States, 29425|
|United States, Washington|
|Virginia Mason Medical Center|
|Seattle, Washington, United States, 98101|
|St. Michael's Hospital|
|Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M4X1W4|
|Principal Investigator:||Douglas Pleskow, MD||Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA|
|Principal Investigator:||Richard Rothstein, MD||Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH|
|Principal Investigator:||Simon Lo, MD||Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA|
|Principal Investigator:||Robert Hawes, MD||Medical University of South Carolina|
|Principal Investigator:||Richard Kozarek, MD||Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA|
|Principal Investigator:||Gregory Haber, MD||St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada|
|Principal Investigator:||Christopher Gostout, MD||Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN|