Evaluation of Safety and Effectiveness of the RefluxStop Device in the Management of GERD
|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: NCT02759094|
Recruitment Status : Active, not recruiting
First Posted : May 3, 2016
Last Update Posted : April 6, 2023
Prospective, open-label, multi-centre, single arm treatment only trial to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of RefluxStop for the treatment of GERD.
The used medical device "RefluxStop" is an implantable single use sterile device to ensure maintenance of gastro oesophageal junction (GEJ) in an intra-abdominal position to reduce or eliminate GERD.
|Condition or disease||Intervention/treatment||Phase|
|GERD||Device: Treatment with RefluxStop||Not Applicable|
The study plan will include a screening/baseline visit, a surgical procedure phase with hospital stay until discharge, and study visits at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months after device implantation.
A follow-up will be performed annually from years 1-5 to evaluate long-term safety and performance with the intention to collect post-market long-term data using the GERD-HRQL score as a screening tool. Data of subjects who agreed to participate in the long-term safety and performance will be analysed after 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years.
At the screening/baseline visit, after signing the informed consent, the eligibility of subjects to receive treatment with the study device will be determined. Eligible subjects will then undergo the device implant procedure.
A standard laparoscopic approach will be used to reposition the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) to its intra-abdominal position. The RefluxStop™ device will then be positioned and fixed in the gastric fundus to ensure intra-abdominal positioning of the GEJ at all time. After confirming proper placement, the laparoscopic implant procedure will be completed and access points will be closed. The procedure will be recorded and saved only with study identification number and without subject ID information. The same applies for images on contrast swallow controlling the device.
Evaluations will be performed daily during hospitalisation and in an additional 3 study visits in the outpatient setting at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months. Subjects who have given their consent to participate in the long-term safety and performance follow-up part of the study will be followed annually from year 1-5.
A pathologically low pH in the lower esophagus is correlated to the development of precancerous changes/ Barrett's esophagus and fulminant cancer, as shown in the literature. Barrett's esophagus occurs in 1-2% of the total population while daily acid reflux patients have an incidence of 10-20% depending on the severity of the acid reflux [Modiano, Gerson 2007; Cossentino, Wong 2003]. As many as 48,000 people p.a. die in Europe and the US alone of esophageal adenocarcinoma, the primary cause of which is acid reflux. Therefore, in order to determine whether treatment is maintained in the longer-term, an additional 24-hour pH monitoring and simplified contrast swallow x-ray to verify the position of the device will be performed at 5 years for the benefit of the patients.
These long-term results have also been requested by the U.S. FDA. A quality control of the placement of the device will be categorized for subjects at after surgery, 6 months and 5 year follow-up and at therapy failure.
The position of the device is of utmost importance and will be categorized in the case of therapy failure.
To ensure a proper quality control, the contrast swallow x-ray determining eventual hiatal hernia performed before surgery is repeated at hospital stay after surgery and during the 6-month surgical outcome control and at 5-year follow-up. This x-ray is also used for categorizing the position of the device in a four-graded scale if therapy failure occurs and should be performed by the radiologist using the standard of care post-op contrast swallow.
|Study Type :||Interventional (Clinical Trial)|
|Actual Enrollment :||50 participants|
|Intervention Model:||Single Group Assignment|
|Masking:||None (Open Label)|
|Official Title:||Evaluation of Safety and Effectiveness of the RefluxStop Device in the Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD)|
|Actual Study Start Date :||December 2016|
|Actual Primary Completion Date :||March 2018|
|Estimated Study Completion Date :||December 2023|
Experimental: Treatment with RefluxStop device
All enrolled subjects will receive treatment for their GERD using the RefluxStop device intervention
Device: Treatment with RefluxStop
A standard laparoscopic approach will be used to reposition the lower oesophageal sphincter (LES) to its intra-abdominal position. The RefluxStop device will be then positioned and fixed in the gastric funds to ensure intra-abdominal positioning of the GEJ (Gastro-oesophageal Junction) at all time. After confirming proper placement, the laparoscopic implant procedure will be completed and access points will be closed.
- Primary safety endpoint [ Time Frame: at 6 months ]Assessment of incidence of serious adverse device effects (SADEs) and procedure-related serious adverse events (SAEs)
- Primary efficacy endpoint [ Time Frame: at 6 months ]Percent reduction from baseline of GERD symptoms based on the GERD-HRQL score (questions 1-10). The data will also be presented as the number of subjects obtaining a 50% improvement of the baseline figures, with success defined as 60% of the subjects to reach such score improvement. Thus, the aim of this analysis is to show that the lower limit of the confidence interval exceeds 60%.
- Secondary safety endpoint [ Time Frame: at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months (ADEs and AEs only) and annually years 1-5 ]Assessment of incidence of serious adverse device effects (SADEs) and procedure-related serious adverse events (SAEs). Incidence of adverse device effects (ADEs) and procedure-related adverse events (AEs)
- Secondary efficacy endpoint: HRQL all other timepoints [ Time Frame: measured at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months and follow-up years 1-5 ]Percent reduction from baseline of GERD symptoms based on the GERD-HRQL score (questions 1-10)
- Secondary efficacy endpoint: additional questions [ Time Frame: measured at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and follow up years 1-5 ]Reduction from baseline of GERD symptoms based on the total GERD-HRQL score (questions 1-10) and individual symptom questions
- Secondary efficacy endpoint: 24-hr pH monitoring [ Time Frame: measured at baseline, 6 months, 5 years and if therapy failure ]Reduction or normalisation from baseline of the total acid (pH<4) exposure time on 24-hour pH monitoring
- Secondary efficacy endpoint: PPI usage [ Time Frame: measured at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and follow up years 1-5 ]Reduction from baseline of the percentage of subjects with regular daily PPI usage
- Secondary efficacy endpoint: Foregut [ Time Frame: measured at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and follow up years 1-5 ]Reduction from baseline of individual foregut questionnaire scores focusing on regurgitation and additional information on dysphagia and odynophagia reported as AEs, or alternatively GERD-HRQL questions >2 and/or >3
- Secondary efficacy endpoint: Endoscopy [ Time Frame: measured at baseline, 6 months and if therapy failure ]Improvement in esophagitis on upper endoscopy
- Secondary efficacy endpoint: device location [ Time Frame: measured at hospital stay, 6 weeks, 6 months, 5 years and if therapy failure ]Location and function of the device evaluated by a simplified contrast swallow x-ray with overview pictures of device and LES position during swallowing
- Secondary efficacy subgroup endpoint [ Time Frame: per patient any point in the study triggered either by regular daily PPI usage or a GERD-HRQL score with less than 50% improvement compared to baseline, and having been verified as therapy failure via 24-hr pH monitoring and x-ray results ]Reduction or change comparison based on the following subgroups: age, gender, weight and result of baseline total GERD-HRQL score, comparing the following secondary endpoints: the total acid (pH<4) exposure time on routine 24-hour pH monitoring at month 6 and the number and percentage of subjects having verified therapy failure
- Exploratory endpoint: procedure complications [ Time Frame: during procedure ]Assess any procedure-related complications
- Exploratory endpoint: Procedure time [ Time Frame: during procedure ]Assess time to perform the procedure
- Exploratory endpoint: length of hospital stay [ Time Frame: from date of admission to date of discharge, assessed up to 100 months ]Assess length of the subject's hospital stay
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): NCT02759094
|Budapest, Hungary, 1082|
|University of Debrecen, Kenezy Gyula Teaching Hospital, General Surgery Department|
|Debrecen, Hungary, 4031|
|Fejer County Szent Gyorgy University Teaching Hospital, Surgical Department|
|Székesfehérvár, Hungary, H-8000|
|Clinical Center of Serbia, Clinic for Digestive Surgery|
|Belgrade, Serbia, 11000|
|Principal Investigator:||László Harsányi, Prof.||Semmelweis University|