300,000+ clinical trials. Find the right one.

51 active trials for Bleeding

Pre- vs Postoperative Thromboprophylaxis for Liver Resection

Thromboprophylaxis for liver surgery can be commenced either preoperatively or postoperatively. Despite a clear trade-off between thrombosis and bleeding in liver surgery patients, there is no international consensus when thrombosis prophylaxis should be commenced in patients undergoing liver surgery. As far as we know, there are no prospective randomized trials in this field, and current guidelines are unfortunately based on very low quality evidence, that is, a few retrospective studies and expert opinion. Both American and European thromboprophylaxis guidelines for abdominal cancer surgery support the preoperative initiation of thromboprophylaxis, but these guidelines do not specifically address the increased bleeding risk associated with liver surgery. On the contrary, Dutch guidelines recommend postoperative thromboprophylaxis only, because of lack of evidence for preoperative thromboprophylaxis. Traditionally, many liver surgery units have been reluctant in using preoperative thromboprophylaxis due to the potentially increased risk of bleeding complications. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society Guidelines recommend preoperative thromboprophylaxis in liver surgery, but the guidelines provide no supporting evidence for this recommendation. Overall, the amount of evidence is scarce and somewhat contradictory in this clinically relevant field of thromboprophylaxis in liver surgery. The aim of this study is to compare pre- and postoperatively initiated thromboprophylaxis regimens in liver surgery in a randomized controlled trial.

Start: February 2021
Restarting Anticoagulation After Traumatic Intracranial Hemorrhage

Primary Objective: To identify the optimal interval to restart oral anticoagulation after traumatic intracranial hemorrhage that will minimize thrombotic events and major bleeding by performing a response adaptive randomized (RAR) PROBE clinical trial of restarting in anticoagulant-associated traumatic intracranial hemorrhage patients, comparing restart at 1 week to restart at 2 weeks or at 4 weeks, with a primary composite outcome of major thrombotic events and bleeding. Primary Outcome: 60-day composite of thromboembolic events, defined as DVT, pulmonary emboli, myocardial infarctions, ischemic strokes and systemic emboli, and bleeding events defined as non-CNS major bleeding events (modified BARC3 or above) and worsening index tICrH or new intracranial hemorrhage (ICrH). Secondary objectives of this trial include: To use the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) of the American College of Surgeons - Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT), a well-established and highly respected trauma center oversight mechanism, to translate findings of the trial into practice in a closed loop. To establish a relationship between time of restarting and overall secondary events, i.e. a dose response, that favors early restarting (1 week is better than 2 weeks and 2 weeks is better than 4 weeks. To explore patient centered utility weighting of thrombotic versus bleeding composite endpoint components by: A) 60-day Disability Rating Scale (DRS) 24,25 and modified Rankin Scale (mRS)26; B) Trial patient-reported standard gamble utilities including by race, gender and ethnicity. To explore the composite without DVT in the thrombotic component

Start: October 2021
What is the Optimal Antithrombotic Strategy in Patients Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndrome Having Atrial Fibrillation With Indication for Anticoagulants?

The optimal antithrombotic management in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF) is unknown. Patients with AF are treated with oral anticoagulation (OAC) to prevent ischemic stroke and systemic embolism and patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or those who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are treated with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), i.e. aspirin plus P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel), to prevent stent thrombosis (ST) and myocardial infarction (MI). Patients with AF undergoing PCI were traditionally treated with triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT, i.e. oral anticoagulation (OAC) plus aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor) to prevent ischemic complications. However, TAT doubles or even triples the risk of major bleeding complications. More recently, several clinical studies demonstrated that omitting aspirin, a strategy known as dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT) is safer compared to TAT with comparable efficacy. However, pooled evidence from recent meta-analyses suggests that patients treated with DAT are at increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST) and even cardiovascular (CV) death. Insights from the AUGUSTUS trial showed that aspirin added to OAC and clopidogrel for 30 days, but not thereafter, resulted in fewer severe ischemic events. This finding emphasizes the relevance of early aspirin administration on ischemic benefit, also reflected in the current ESC guideline. However, because we consider the bleeding risk of TAT unacceptably high, we propose to use a short course of DAPT (drop the OAC for 1 month). There is evidence from the BRIDGE study that a short period of omitting OAC is safe in patients with AF. In this study, these patients are treated with DAPT that also prevents stroke, albeit not as effective as OAC. Thus, by omitting OAC in the first month, we make room for aspirin use for optimal prevention of myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis in the first month after ACS or PCI. The WOEST 3 trial is a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial to investigate the safety and efficacy of one month DAPT compared to standard therapy consisting of OAC and P2Y12 inhibitor combined with aspirin up to 30 days. We hypothesise that the use of short course DAPT is superior in bleeding and, secondary, non-inferior in preventing ischemic events. The primary endpoint is clinically relevant bleeding (according to the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis definition) after one month. Secondary endpoints include a composite of CV death, MI, ischemic stroke, ST, and systemic embolism after one month, and one year follow-up.

Start: July 2022
Cryotherapy for GAVE

Gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE) is a condition that can lead to blood loss in the gastrointestinal tract and low blood counts or anemia. 1,2 GAVE is commonly associated with liver disease, kidney disease and autoimmune immune problems, but can also be seen in patients without those problems. 2-4 It is common for GAVE to cause hospitalization of patients and significant blood transfusion requirements. Given these problems, effective treatment of GAVE is needed to reduce these potential problems. These treatments are performed by a gastroenterologist through a flexible endoscope most often with argon plasma coagulation (APC).5-7 APC is only partially successful at eradicating GAVE and often entails repeated endoscopic procedures. Therapy with APC can also cause ulceration at times resulting in acute bleeding. Cryoablation is an attractive alternative to APC as it should not cause increased blood loss and case reports suggest that ablation may be achieved with limited number of endoscopic sessions. Prior problems with endoscopic cryotherapy include the high flow of gas and risk of perforation.8,9 A recent retrospective investigation by this group has evaluated the first generation cryotherapy balloon, demonstrating clinical safety and efficacy for GAVE.10 A new balloon cryotherapy spray device was recently developed and does not require venting. In this study we plan to prospectively evaluate the use of balloon cryotherapy to treat GAVE. We predict that the therapeutic response of balloon cryotherapy will be greater than 80% effective at achieving clinical success or the loss of overt bleeding and need for packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusion at 6 months after treatment.

Start: October 2020
Changes in Coagulation in Colorectal Cancer Patients Undergoing Surgical Treatment

Cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has prolonged the survival substantially for selected patients with peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer.Bleeding and thromboembolic disease have been reported as postoperative complications related to this advanced open surgical treatment. However, perioperative changes in coagulation and fibrinolysis are only sparsely reported in the literature.The mainstay of treatment with curative intend of none-advanced colorectal cancer is minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. The approach is considered associated with a lower risk of thromboembolic disease than open surgery. Despite differences in extent of surgery and thromboembolic risk the same extended thromboprophylaxis regimen for 28 days is currently prescribed to patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC as well as minimally invasive rectal cancer resection. This study aims to investigate all parts of the coagulation system and fibrinolysis, and thereby thromboembolic risk and potential bleeding in two groups of patients with different extent of surgical trauma: 1) Colorectal cancer patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC and 2) rectal cancer patients undergoing minimal invasive rectal cancer resection. Our hypothesis is that patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC are exposed to more aggravated alterations of coagulation and fibrinolysis than patients undergoing minimally invasive rectal cancer resection.

Start: March 2021