DeFect cLOsure After Colonic ESD With underwaTer Technique (FLOAT)
Primary Purpose
Colonic Polyp
Status
Completed
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
Hong Kong
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Underwater clip closure
Conventional clip closure
Sponsored by

About this trial
This is an interventional treatment trial for Colonic Polyp focused on measuring Endosocpic submucosal dissection, Underwater clip closure
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
- Patients undergoing elective endoscopic resection
- Colorectal superficial neoplasm with a resultant mucosal defect of ≥20mm
- Age >18 years old
Exclusion Criteria:
- Patients on anticoagulation (Warfarin or other direct oral anticoagulants)
- Muscular perforation during the endoscopic resection
- Incomplete endoscopic resection
- Lesions arising from surgical anastomotic site
- Marked electrolyte abnormalities
- Other cases deemed by the examining physician as unsuitable for safe treatment
- Patients who refused to participate
Sites / Locations
- Prince of Wales Hospital
Arms of the Study
Arm 1
Arm 2
Arm Type
Experimental
Active Comparator
Arm Label
Underwater clip closure
Conventional clip closure
Arm Description
The post-resection defect is closed using endoscopic clips with underwater technique
The post-resection defect is closed using endoscopic clips with conventional gas insufflation (CO2)
Outcomes
Primary Outcome Measures
Time required to complete clip closure of mucosal defect
o Defined as the time from completion of prophylactic coagulation till the final clip application (min)
Secondary Outcome Measures
Technical success of complete closure of defect (%)
Total time for endoscopic procedure (min)
Number of endoscopic clip used for closure
Rate of Haemorrhage
Post-procedural per rectal bleeding that requires intervention or blood product transfusion
Rate of Perforation
Abdominal pain with radiological evidence of intra-abdominal free gas suggesting perforation
Rate of Post-polypectomy electrocoagulation syndrome
Abdominal pain without radiological evidence of intra-abdominal free gas to suggest perforation
Rate of Any other adverse event related to the procedure
Other adverse event
Full Information
NCT ID
NCT04214678
First Posted
December 28, 2019
Last Updated
August 21, 2023
Sponsor
Chinese University of Hong Kong
1. Study Identification
Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT04214678
Brief Title
DeFect cLOsure After Colonic ESD With underwaTer Technique
Acronym
FLOAT
Official Title
DeFect cLOsure After Colonic ESD With underwaTer Technique Versus Conventional Clip : a Randomized Controlled Trial
Study Type
Interventional
2. Study Status
Record Verification Date
August 2023
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
July 1, 2020 (Actual)
Primary Completion Date
June 30, 2023 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
June 30, 2023 (Actual)
3. Sponsor/Collaborators
Responsible Party, by Official Title
Principal Investigator
Name of the Sponsor
Chinese University of Hong Kong
4. Oversight
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
No
Data Monitoring Committee
Yes
5. Study Description
Brief Summary
This is a single centre randomised controlled study comparing underwater clip closure versus conventional gas insufflation clip closure of post-resection defect in patients undergoing colonic endoscopic resection. The investigators hypothesize that underwater clip closure would be faster than conventional closure under gas insufflation.
Detailed Description
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a minimally invasive technique that has been increasingly applied to superficial colorectal tumours over the past two decades (1, 2). Although serious complications with this procedure are uncommon, both significant delayed haemorrhage (1-2%) and perforation (4-6%) are recognised complications (3). Although perforation is generally recognised and treated at time of endoscopy, delayed bleeding often requires repeat readmission and endoscopy for haemorrhage control. There is growing evidence to support prophylactic clip closure of mucosal defects to reduce incidences of delayed haemorrhage.
Prophylactic clip closure of mucosal defects (≥20mm) after colonic ESD is supported by large retrospective case series. In a series of 524 lesions in 463 patients, Liaquat et al. (2013) reported prophylactic clipping of resection sites to close mucosal defects versus non-closure, reduced delayed haemorrhage (9.7% vs 1.8%) (4). Ogiyama et al. (2018) reported similar findings in a series of 156 lesions (0% vs 8.2%, p=0.008) (5).
Prophylactic defect closure also has a theoretical benefit in reducing delayed perforation from unrecognised muscular breach during dissection. Though it is recognised that there is a paucity of evidence to support mucosal apposition in reducing delayed perforation rates (~0.2%) (3). This is likely due to the underpowered published studies and a very low event rate.
For these reasons, it has been routine practice of many endoscopists for clip closure of mucosal defects after endoscopic resection of large colorectal neoplasia. However, this technique remains technically challenging within the narrow colonic space and at times may not be feasible. The 'underwater closure technique' in mucosal defect closure of colonic and duodenal endoscopic resections has promising early results. Compared to conventional CO2 insufflation clip placement, at the time of mucosal closure this technique applies luminal water infusion to 'float' the resection borders and downsize the target. Early experience suggests this technique facilitates easier apposition of resection borders and complete closure. There are currently no randomized trials comparing these clip closure techniques.
The aim of the study is to evaluate whether prophylactic underwater closure technique facilitates easier ESD mucosal defect closure compared to conventional clip closure.
This is a single centre prospective randomized controlled trial. Consecutive patients undergoing endoscopic resection for colonic lesions would be recruited. Participants would be randomized to receive prophylactic conventional clip closure versus underwater technique.
6. Conditions and Keywords
Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Colonic Polyp
Keywords
Endosocpic submucosal dissection, Underwater clip closure
7. Study Design
Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
None (Open Label)
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
64 (Actual)
8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions
Arm Title
Underwater clip closure
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
The post-resection defect is closed using endoscopic clips with underwater technique
Arm Title
Conventional clip closure
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
The post-resection defect is closed using endoscopic clips with conventional gas insufflation (CO2)
Intervention Type
Procedure
Intervention Name(s)
Underwater clip closure
Intervention Description
Closure of post-resection defect with endoscopic clips by underwater technique
Intervention Type
Procedure
Intervention Name(s)
Conventional clip closure
Intervention Description
Closure of post-resection defect with endoscopic clip by conventional technique
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Time required to complete clip closure of mucosal defect
Description
o Defined as the time from completion of prophylactic coagulation till the final clip application (min)
Time Frame
Within 1 hour
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Technical success of complete closure of defect (%)
Time Frame
Within 1 hour
Title
Total time for endoscopic procedure (min)
Time Frame
Within 1 hour
Title
Number of endoscopic clip used for closure
Time Frame
Within 1 hour
Title
Rate of Haemorrhage
Description
Post-procedural per rectal bleeding that requires intervention or blood product transfusion
Time Frame
30 days
Title
Rate of Perforation
Description
Abdominal pain with radiological evidence of intra-abdominal free gas suggesting perforation
Time Frame
30 days
Title
Rate of Post-polypectomy electrocoagulation syndrome
Description
Abdominal pain without radiological evidence of intra-abdominal free gas to suggest perforation
Time Frame
30 days
Title
Rate of Any other adverse event related to the procedure
Description
Other adverse event
Time Frame
30 days
10. Eligibility
Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
Patients undergoing elective endoscopic resection
Colorectal superficial neoplasm with a resultant mucosal defect of ≥20mm
Age >18 years old
Exclusion Criteria:
Patients on anticoagulation (Warfarin or other direct oral anticoagulants)
Muscular perforation during the endoscopic resection
Incomplete endoscopic resection
Lesions arising from surgical anastomotic site
Marked electrolyte abnormalities
Other cases deemed by the examining physician as unsuitable for safe treatment
Patients who refused to participate
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Hon Chi Yip, MBChB
Organizational Affiliation
Chinese University of Hong Kong
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
Facility Information:
Facility Name
Prince of Wales Hospital
City
Hong Kong
Country
Hong Kong
12. IPD Sharing Statement
Plan to Share IPD
No
Learn more about this trial
DeFect cLOsure After Colonic ESD With underwaTer Technique
We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs