Evidence Hub

Study protocol for ACTIVE study: safety and feasibility evaluation of external ventricular drainage with ACTIVE fluid exchange in intraventricular hemorrhage—a phase 2, multi-center, randomized controlled trial

M. Haldrup, N. Mohamad, M. Rasmussen, Line Thorup, S. Dyrskog, C. Simonsen, Rares Miscov, C. Bjarkam et al.

Trials, 2022

58 participants · 8 citations

Abstract

Background Primary intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) or IVH secondary to intracerebral (ICH) and subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) are known to have a very poor prognosis, with an expected mortality between 50 and 80% (Hinson et al. Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports 10:73–82, 2010). Clearance of IVH might improve patient outcome. Methods The study is designed as an investigator-initiated, comparative, prospective, multi-center, 1:1 randomized phase 2 trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of active irrigation in external ventricular drainage (intervention arm—IRRAflow) compared to passive external ventricular drainage (control arm—EVD). The trial will enroll 58 patients with primary or secondary IVH. Major eligibility criteria include age ≥18 years of age, IVH documented on head CT or MRI scan (Graeb score ≥3), need of cerebrospinal fluid drainage, deterioration of consciousness or medical sedation at the time of enrollment, and indication for active treatment evaluated by the treating physicians. Exclusion criteria included patients with fixed and dilated pupils and pregnant or nursing women. The primary endpoint of the study is catheter occlusion evaluated by time to first observed occlusion from VC placement. Secondary endpoints include clearance of ventricular blood as measured by head CT scan, rates of catheter-related infection and shunt dependency, length of intensive care unit stay, functional status—Extended Glascow Outcome Scale (eGOS) and modified Rankin…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 58 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free