Randomized Trial of UI-EWD vs. Conventional Endoscopic Therapy for Bleeding Ulcers (TREET)

Medtronic

Status: Enrolling

Conditions: Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Treatments: Device: UI-EWD; Device: Conventional therapy

Study type: Interventional

Funder types: NETWORK; Industry

Identifiers

NCT06188585

MDT23013

Details and patient eligibility

About

A prospective, multi-center, noninferiority randomized controlled trial designed to compare the efficacy of UI-EWD (Nexpowder™) hemostatic powder versus conventional endoscopic hemostatic therapy in patients presenting with acute overt gastrointestinal bleeding which is found at endoscopy to be due to a gastric or duodenal ulcer with active bleeding (spurting or oozing) or a non-bleeding visible vessel.

Full description

Endoscopic hemostatic therapy is recommended as the first line therapy for patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) due to ulcers with active bleeding or a non-bleeding visible vessel identified at endoscopy. A variety of endoscopic modalities are used in the treatment of UGIB, including thermal therapies (e.g., bipolar electrocoagulation), injection therapy (e.g., epinephrine), clips, and hemostatic powder spray. Topical therapies, such as hemostatic powder spray, have been the most recent addition to the armamentarium of endoscopic therapies for UGIB.

UI-EWD hemostatic powder (Nexpowder™), which is manufactured by NextBiomedical and distributed by Medtronic, is approved for treatment of nonvariceal UGIB in the U.S., Canada, European Union and other countries.

A retrospective study of UI-EWD hemostatic powder in 56 patients with active bleeding found immediate hemostasis in 54 (96.4%), with rebleeding within 7 days in only 2 patients (3.7%)[1]. A large multi-center randomized trial in 340 patients with nonvariceal UGIB and either active bleeding or a non-bleeding visible vessel compared conventional endoscopic hemostatic therapy alone to conventional therapy plus UI-EWD. Rebleeding was significantly lower in the UI-EWD group at 3 days (3 vs. 11%) and at 30 days (19% vs. 7%) [2].

The primary aim of this trial is to demonstrate that UI-EWD when used as initial hemostatic therapy is non-inferior to older conventional endoscopic hemostatic therapy for the treatment of patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding.

Enrollment: 278 estimated patients

Sex: All

Ages: 22+ years old

Volunteers: No Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion criteria

1. Adults age 22 years or older
2. Presentation with acute overt gastrointestinal bleeding (hematemesis, melena, and/or hematochezia)
3. Subject voluntarily agrees to participate in the clinical investigation, provides written informed consent, and will be able to comply with the investigational protocol in the opinion of the site investigator
4. Cause of bleeding as determined at endoscopy is gastric or duodenal ulcer bleeding with active spurting or oozing bleeding or a non-bleeding visible vessel. The definition of "active oozing" will require bleeding to persist for ≥ 3 minutes of endoscopic observation.

Exclusion criteria

1. Incarceration
2. Subjects that are not able to provide written informed consent
3. Subject already hospitalized for another condition when UGIB begins
4. Pregnancy or nursing mothers
5. Endoscopic hemostatic treatment in the past 30 days
6. Use of triple antithrombotic therapy at the time of presentation
7. Subjects who underwent gastric or duodenal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedures within the past 2 months
8. Platelet count < 50 x 10^9/L
9. INR > 3.5 (or prothrombin time >35 seconds in patient not on warfarin and only prothrombin time is provided by local lab), at time of procedure or closest to procedure time
10. Subjects who have documented galactose intolerance, Lapp lactase deficiency or glucose-galactose malabsorption
11. Subjects with documented hypersensitivity to Brilliant Blue FCF
12. Subjects with suspected bowel obstruction or gastrointestinal fistulas, and those suspected or are at high risk of having gastrointestinal perforation.
13. Endoscopy not performed within 30 hours of presentation

Trial design

Primary purpose: Treatment

Allocation: Randomized

Interventional model: Parallel Assignment

Masking: None (Open label)

---

278 participants in 2 patient groups

Test Group

Experimental group

Description:

UI-EWD

Treatment:

Device: UI-EWD

Control Group

Active Comparator group

Description:

Conventional endoscopic therapy

Treatment:

Device: Conventional therapy