Conventional Ultrasound Versus Remote Ultraportable ulTrasound in the Context of Viral Hepatitis
Trial statusRecruiting
Trial phaseNot listed
Trial typeObservational
Biological sexAll
Age18+
SponsorNaik Vietti Violi
About this trial
Comparison of abdominal US exam in patients with viral hepatitis between ultraportable US with teleradiology capacities (TUP) versus conventional ultrasound (CUS)
Eligibility criteria
This trial does not accept healthy volunteersQualifiers
Informed Consent signed by the subject
All adult patients with viral hepatitis for which an ultrasound is planned
Disqualifiers
Known or suspected non-compliance
Inability to follow the procedures of the study, e.g. due to language problems, psychological disorders, dementia, etc. of the participant,
Previous enrollment into the current study
Trial population
Every outpatient referred to the radiology department by a prescriber for abdominal US in the context of viral hepatitis
Trial design
Design model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Treatments tested in this trial
TUP ultraportable US with teleradiology capacities
DeviceComparison of abdominal ultrasound examinations in an at-risk population diagnosed with viral hepatitis: Ultraportable ultrasound with teleradiology capacities (TUP) versus conventional ultrasound (CUS).
CUS conventional ultrasound
DeviceComparison of abdominal ultrasound examinations in an at-risk population diagnosed with viral hepatitis: Ultraportable ultrasound with teleradiology capacities (TUP) versus conventional ultrasound (CUS).
Treatment groups
102 Participants
are divided into 1 treatment groupGroup A: Patients with viral hepatitis2 interventions
Trial outcomes
Primary outcomes
1
Comparison of TUP versus CUS for abdominal imaging in patients with viral hepatitis according to US LI-RADS categories ) for liver lesions
LI RADS categories No observation OR Only definitely benign observation(s) Observation(s) \< 10 mm in diameter, not definitely benign Observation(s) ≥ 10 mm in diameter, not definitely benign OR New thrombus in vein
Time frame
At the end of interventionSecondary outcomes
1
liver visualization scores
no or minimal limitations; moderate limitations; severe limitations
Time frame
At the end of intervention2
liver surface nodularity
Yes/No
Time frame
At the end of intervention3
focal lesions
Yes/No
Time frame
At the end of intervention4
caudate lobe dimensions
cm
Time frame
At the end of interventionSponsors and contacts
Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.
Naik Vietti Violi
Lead sponsor
University of Lausanne Hospitals
Sponsor institution
Source ClinicalTrials.gov