Endoscopic Balloon Dilation Versus Endoscopic Stricturotomy for Short Crohn's Strictures (NCT05521867) | Clinical Trial Compass
Active — Not RecruitingNot Applicable
Endoscopic Balloon Dilation Versus Endoscopic Stricturotomy for Short Crohn's Strictures
India96 participantsStarted 2023-02-10
Plain-language summary
Crohn's disease (CD) related strictures can be treated endoscopically by endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) or endoscopic stricturotomy (EST). EBD is is the established endoscopic treatment for short strictures in Crohn's disease. However, roughly half had recurrent symptoms and two third require surgery after EBD. ES have been used initially for endoscopic treatment of patients for whom EBD was unsuccessful. Subsequently it was shown that ES is a better modality for treating CD related strictures (specially short and anastomotic strictures) than EBD lowering the risk of future surgery and procedure related perforation albeit with an increased risk of bleeding. ES was shown to be non-inferior to re-do surgery in chronic pouch anastomotic sinus in ulcerative colitis (UC) and ileocolic anastomotic strictures in CD thus reducing surgical morbidity. However, these two modalities have not been compared in a randomized controlled manner. We aimed to compare the two endoscopic treatments with regard to clinical success, need for surgery or additional endoscopic procedure and safety in patients with CD who have short (\<3 cm), predominantly fibrotic stenosis excluding those in the small bowel not accessible by endoscope/colonoscope.
Who can participate
Age range
18 Years – 65 Years
Sex
ALL
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Inclusion criteria
. Gastro-duodenal and ileo-colonic strictures (both de novo and anastomotic strictures)
. Short strictures (\<3 cm)
. Fibrotic or mixed stricture (predominantly fibrotic)
. Strictures treated with either EST or EBD.
Exclusion criteria
. No established diagnosis of CD;
. No endoscopic therapy; and
. A combination therapy of EST and EBD at the onset
Questions worth asking your doctor
Bring these to your next appointment. They're a starting point for a shared conversation — not a sign you qualify or a recommendation to enrol.
1Based on my diagnosis and history, is this trial worth exploring for me — or is there a standard treatment we should try first?
2What does this trial's phase tell us about how much is already known about its safety and benefit?
3What would taking part actually involve for me — visits, tests, time, and travel?
4What are the known and possible risks or side effects I should weigh, and how would they be monitored?
5If this trial isn't the right fit, what other options or trials would you suggest I look into?
Generated to help you prepare — always confirm anything about your own eligibility and care with the study team and your doctor.
Questions for the trial coordinator
The trial coordinator is the person who runs the study day to day. These cover the practical side — logistics, costs, and what taking part would actually mean for your life. The study team confirms whether you meet the criteria; these are questions to ask, not a sign you qualify.
1What does taking part actually involve week to week — how many visits, where, and how long does each one take?
2What costs are covered by the study, and what might I have to pay for myself, including travel, parking, or time off work?
3What happens during screening, and what happens if the study team confirms I don't meet the criteria after those tests?
4Who pays for the scans, blood work, and other tests the trial requires — the study, my insurance, or me?
5How will being in the trial affect my regular care, and will my own doctor stay informed and involved?
6Can I leave the trial at any point if I change my mind, and what would happen to my care if I do?
A starting point for the conversation — always confirm anything about your own eligibility, costs, and care with the study team and your doctor.
What they're measuring
1
Comparison of the percentage of sustained clinical improvement in EBD and ES arms