Skip to content

Non-Complex Biliary Stones DSC vs ERC

Prospective, Multi-center, Randomized Controlled Study Comparing Endoscopic Clearance of Non-Complex Biliary Stones Using Fluoroscopy/Radiation-Free Direct Solitary Cholangioscopy (DSC) to Standard of Care Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiography (ERC)

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03421340
Enrollment
250
Registered
2018-02-05
Start date
2018-09-21
Completion date
2023-10-08
Last updated
2025-01-17

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

Conditions

Biliary Stones

Keywords

ERCP, DSC, Spy Glass, Biliary Stones, Choledocholithiasis, Non-Complex, Stones

Brief summary

To prospectively compare non-complex biliary stone clearance using fluoroscopy/radiation-free direct solitary cholangioscopy (DSC) utilizing the SpyGlass™ system with non-complex biliary stone clearance using standard endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC).

Detailed description

The objective of this study is to prospectively compare non-complex biliary stone clearance using fluoroscopy/radiation-free direct solitary cholangioscopy (DSC) utilizing the SpyGlass™ system with non-complex biliary stone clearance using standard endoscopic retrograde cholangioscopy (ERC).

Interventions

DEVICEDSC

Stone removal without fluoroscopy using the SpyGlass device.

DEVICEERC

Standard of care stone removal with fluoroscopy.

Sponsors

Boston Scientific Corporation
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

1. 18 years or older 2. Abdominal pain consistent with choledocholithiasis (procedure possible within 72 hours of onset of symptoms and imaging suggesting choledocholithiasis, contingent on persistent abdominal pain) 3. Abnormal LFTs 4. Non-complex biliary stone disease, defined as 5 or fewer stones in the common bile or common hepatic duct with largest stone no larger than 10 mm in size. If stones not seen on imaging (US, CT) the bile duct diameter should be ≤12 mm\* \* Given the poor sensitivity (approximately 20%) for biliary stones of CT and US, the diameter of the dilated CBD is used as a surrogate for largest stone diameter 5. Availability of non-invasive imaging to determine the diameter of the bile duct and number and size of bile duct stones if visible on imaging 1. If probability of stones is high per investigator assessment based on ASGE criteria, any standard of practice imaging modality (eg. abdominal US) is acceptable. 2. If the probability of stones is either intermediate or low per investigator assessment based on ASGE criteria, MRCP or EUS imaging is required to confirm presence of stones. 6. Willing and able to comply with the study procedures and provide written informed consent to participate in the study

Exclusion criteria

1. Potentially vulnerable subjects, including but not limited to pregnant women and subjects in whom an endoscopic procedure is contraindicated 2. Location of the stones in intrahepatic ducts, cystic duct or proximal to strictures 3. Bile duct stricture noted distal to stone on MRCP, which would make extraction without lithotripsy impossible 4. Ongoing cholangitis at time of randomization, manifested by fever with tachycardia and hypotension or evidence of pus at the ampulla 5. Patients with prior biliary sphincterotomy 6. Patients with Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis (PSC) 7. Acute pancreatitis, defined as abdominal pain and serum concentration of pancreatic enzymes \[lipase (required), amylase (optional)\] three or more times the upper limit of normal 8. Surgically altered gastro-duodenal luminal anatomy other than prior Billroth I reconstruction, as these would be anticipated to lead to more complicated procedures 9. Coagulopathy or ongoing need for anti-coagulation

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Number of Participants With Complete Stone Clearance30 DaysProspectively compare DSC vs. ERC

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Rate of Serious Adverse Events30 DaysTo evaluate all SAEs including death, severity, onset, time to resolution.
Radiation Exposure3 hoursTotal Fluoroscopy time
Duration of Procedure3 hoursDefined as time from duodenoscope in to completion of stone clearance.

Countries

India, Italy, Thailand, United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
ERC Arm
After screening examination and confirmed presence of non-complex bile duct stone by image, patients will be randomly assigned by stratified randomization to Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangioscopy (ERC) treatment. ERC: Standard of care stone removal with fluoroscopy.
126
DSC Arm
After screening examination and confirmed presence of non-complex bile duct stone by imagine, patients will be randomly assigned by stratified randomization to fluoroscopy/radiation-free direct solitary cholangioscopy (DSC). DSC: Stone removal without fluoroscopy using the SpyGlass device.
124
Total250

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicDSC ArmTotalERC Arm
Age, Continuous50.3 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 18
52 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 17.4
53.6 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 16.7
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected0 Participants
Region of Enrollment
India
58 participants117 participants59 participants
Region of Enrollment
Italy
1 participants1 participants0 participants
Region of Enrollment
Thailand
26 participants53 participants27 participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
39 participants79 participants40 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
79 Participants150 Participants71 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
45 Participants100 Participants55 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
1 / 1261 / 124
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 1260 / 124
serious
Total, serious adverse events
5 / 1267 / 124

Outcome results

Primary

Number of Participants With Complete Stone Clearance

Prospectively compare DSC vs. ERC

Time frame: 30 Days

Population: ITT

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
ERC ArmNumber of Participants With Complete Stone Clearance112 Participants
DSC ArmNumber of Participants With Complete Stone Clearance108 Participants
p-value: 0.029exact
Secondary

Duration of Procedure

Defined as time from duodenoscope in to completion of stone clearance.

Time frame: 3 hours

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
ERC ArmDuration of Procedure11.9 minutes
DSC ArmDuration of Procedure22.1 minutes
95% CI: [-11.6, -7.5]
Secondary

Radiation Exposure

Total Fluoroscopy time

Time frame: 3 hours

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
ERC ArmRadiation Exposure133 seconds
DSC ArmRadiation Exposure0 seconds
95% CI: [120, 143]
Secondary

Rate of Serious Adverse Events

To evaluate all SAEs including death, severity, onset, time to resolution.

Time frame: 30 Days

Population: ITT

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
ERC ArmRate of Serious Adverse Events5 Participants
DSC ArmRate of Serious Adverse Events7 Participants
95% CI: [-8, 4.1]

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 17, 2026