Active clinical trials for "Constriction, Pathologic"

This is a clinical evaluation to assess the effectiveness of cryospray therapy used in addition to current standard of care endoscopic therapies in preventing short term recurrent airway stenosis with a multicentric outcome evaluation. The investigators hypothesize that the addition of SCT to standard endoscopic treatment of benign airway stenosis will result in decreased stenosis recurrence at 6 months as estimated by quantitative radiologic assessment of the stenotic volume.

The main objective of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and safety of the GEMINUS system in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. This is a prospective, open label, multicentre, single arm, first in human clinical study. Clinical follow up for all patients will be performed at 30 days, 6 months, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years post-implantation

Objective propose: to investigate the effect of Ramipril in suppressing ST2 (suppression of tumorigenicity 2) in the cardiac mitral valve in patients with Rheumatic Heart Disease. We hypothesized that we hypothesized that ramipril will improve rheumatic mitral valve fibrosis through the downregulation of ST2.

This is a pre-market clinical investigation aiming to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of Microport™ CardioFlow VitaFlow™ II Transcatheter Aortic Valve System for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis.

Chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI) is often caused by narrowings in the arteries providing blood to the intestines. Endovascular stent placement is considered the preferred treatment for this condition. Guidelines increasingly support the use of so called covered stents (CS) in stead of bare stents (BMS) for this use but the level of evidence for this is limited. Using CS incur additional costs for healthcare short-term but may prevent recurrence of narrowing and symptoms postoperatively benefitting patients and healthcare. Study Objective: To evaluate the outcomes after stenting of mesenteric arteries using BMS or CS. Study Outcome: Primary stent patency 1 year after placement The trial will also evaluate complications, how often stents need to be reoperated, Quality of Life (QoL) and reasons for subjects death Method: This is a so called prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing CS vs. BMS. This means that one patients have agrred to treatment they will be randomly selected for treatment with either CS or BMS . The stent metal structure is identical in the two implants and the only difference is the graft covering, making this study unique. The study will also collect blood samples for a biobank that will be used to study markers of disease and how these effect treatment outcomes. All patients referred to the Department of Vascular Surgery due to CMI are considered for inclusion if they havechronic symptoms consistent with CMI, significant stenosis or occlusion of the superior mesenteric artery and are > 18 years Subjects not able to provide informed consent or who have non atherosclerotic cause of CMI, signs of acute loss of blood flow to the intestines cannot participate. Previous stent treatment in the superior mesenteric artery, pregnancy, allergies to contrast or stent materials are also reasons for not being included in this trial. Side effects, risks and disadvantages for participants The risk for procedure-related complications is less than 5% and similar in both study groups. Most short-term complications are related to vascular access sites and consist of local bleeding and thrombosis. Other potential complications include impaired renal function due to contrast use, contrast allergy, arterial dissection and death.

Multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing endoscopic laser resection vs dilatation in benign tracheal stenosis.

The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of strict blood pressure control versus conventional care in patients with asymptomatic moderate to severe aortic valve stenosis. The study is a randomized (1:1), open label, controlled intervention trial. Hypothesis: Strict BP control for 12 months reduces the progression of LV remodelling compared to conventional treatment. Strict BP control for 2 years reduces the increase in aortic valve calcification and LV remodelling compared to conventional treatment. Strict BP reduction for up to 10 years reduces the need for aortic valve replacement and cardiovascular events compared to conventional care.

There is a large population of patients with lumbosacral radicular pain due to spinal stenosis who do not respond to physical therapy or oral medication management, yet wish to avoid spinal surgery or are simply not candidates due to medical co-morbidity. Given the natural history of lumbar spinal stenosis, these patients typically suffer from chronic pain and disability. Currently, the typical treatment for this population is serial corticosteroid injection. The efficacy of the treatment specifically for the indication of spinal stenosis is in question and is associated with both concerning chronic sequelae and the risk, although low, of catastrophic neurologic compromise. Alternatively, hAF is a promising new biologic treatment with neuro-protective and regenerative properties. Early studies demonstrate its anti-inflammatory properties, with high levels of anti-inflammatory cytokines, in addition to its ability to assist with regeneration of peripheral nerves. Furthermore, it has a favorable side-effect profile without concern for long-term sequelae or potential for neurologic compromise. The present study aims to determine if epidural injection of hAF compared to the corticosteroid dexamethasone is more effective for the treatment of lumbosacral radicular pain due to spinal stenosis, as measured by pain, disability, psychological function, oral analgesic use, and avoidance of surgery. Evidence for superiority of epidural hAF compared to dexamethasone injection would change the treatment paradigm for refractory radicular pain due to spinal stenosis. Furthermore, even if shown to be non-inferior to epidural dexamethasone, epidural hAF would be favored given its superior safety profile. Thus, this research has the potential to improve outcomes and patient safety in a very large population with chronic pain.

The goal of this randomized controlled trial is to identify the effects of percutaneous interventions for branch PA stenosis on exercise capacity in patients with d-TGA, ToF and TA. The main question[s] it aims to answer are: The primary study objective is to identify the effects of percutaneous interventions for branch PA stenosis on exercise capacity in patients with d-TGA, ToF and TA. The secondary objectives are 1) to assess the effects of percutaneous interventions for branch PA stenosis on RV function and 2) to define early markers for RV function and adaptation to improve timing of these interventions. Participants will undergo the same series of examinations at baseline and approximately 6 months follow-up (within 6 week time-range) as part of standard care: conventional transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE), cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) and conventional Cardiac Magnetic Resonance (CMR) including a low dose dobutamine stress MRI to assess RV functional reserve. The low dose dobutamine stress MRI will be performed in the interventional group from the UMC Utrecht/WKZ and Erasmus MC because the LUMC and AUMC do not have a suitable infrastructure for the low dose dobutamine stress MRI and this cannot be achieved throughout the duration of this study. The baseline CMR in the interventional group will be performed as close as possible prior to the intervention but maximal 4 weeks prior to the intervention. In addition, the intervention group will undergo standard RV pressure measurements during the intervention. Quality of life (QoL) questionnaires will be obtained at baseline and 2 weeks post intervention (intervention group) or a similar time range in the control group, which is based on experts opinion. TTE, CPET and conventional CMR will be performed within 2-4 years follow-up to assess the long-term effects of percutaneous PA interventions. Researchers will compare the difference in VO2 max (% predicted) between the interventional group (TGA, ToF or TA patients with a class II indication for a PA intervention who will undergo a percutaneous intervention for a PA stenosis) and the control group (TGA, ToF or TA patients with a class II indication for a PA intervention who will undergo conservative management)

To Evaluate the Safety and Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve System ( Chengdu Silara Medtech Inc. ,Chengdu, China)in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis with or without Moderate or Lower Degree Regurgitation