Skip to content

Preventive Antibiotics in Stroke Study - PASS

Preventive Antibiotics in Stroke Study - PASS

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
EU CTR
Registry ID
EUCTR2010-018421-19-NL
Enrollment
Unknown
Registered
2010-03-10
Start date
2010-05-05
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2015-02-16

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Stroke and stroke-associated infection MedDRA version: 12.1 Level: LLT Classification code 10042244 Term: Stroke MedDRA version: 12.1 Level: LLT Classification code 10021789 Term: Infection

Interventions

Trade Name: Ceftriaxone Product Name: Ceftriaxone Pharmaceutical Form: Powder for solution for infusion INN or Proposed INN: CEFTRIAXONE CAS Number: 73384-59-5 Concentration unit: mg milligram(s) Conc

Sponsors

AMC
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
All

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1. Age>18 yr 2. Stroke (ischemic and hemorrhagic) 3. Any measurable neurological deficit defined as NIHSS >1 4. Stroke onset =65 years) yes F.1.3.1 Number of subjects for this age range

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: 1. Clinical signs of infection on admission requiring antibiotic therapy 2. Use of antibiotics < 24 h before admission 3. Pregnancy 4. Hypersensitivity for cephalosporin 5. Anaphylaxis for penicillin derivates

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Main Objective: To investigate whether prophylactic use of the antibiotic ceftriaxone improves functional health outcomes in patients with stroke by preventing infection. ;Secondary Objective: Within this trial we will also assess the cost-effectiveness of this preventive treatment. ;Primary end point(s): The primary efficacy end point will be functional health at 3-month follow-up, as assessed by the modified Rankin scale (mRS) dichotomized as a favourable outcome (mRS 0-2) or an unfavourable outcome (mRS 3-6).(20) Improvement beyond expectation according to the sliding dichotomy approach is more sensitive to treatment effects, as it takes into account improvements at any point on the mRS. Therefore, this will be our secondary analysis.(24) Beneficial effects in this approach should be accompanied by effects on the classic endpoints in the same direction to be considered convincing.

Countries

Netherlands

Outcome results

None listed

Source: EU CTR (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026