Study identification

PURI

https://redirect.ema.europa.eu/resource/50692

EU PAS number

EUPAS50570

Study ID

50692

Official title and acronym

Comparative safety study to assess the risk of anastomotic leakage of two-row versus three-row manual circular staplers in colorectal anastomosis

DARWIN EU® study

No

Study countries

United States

Study description

The retrospective cohort study is designed to estimate the risk of anastomotic leak among patients who underwent a left-sided colorectal surgery with use of a 2-row manual circular stapler (Ethicon Manual Circular Staplers or Medtronic EEA™ Circular Stapler with DST™ technology) relative to use of a 3-row manual circular stapler (i.e. Medtronic EEA™ Circular Stapler with Tri-Staple™ technology). This study will include two head-to-head comparisons: Ethicon Manual Circular Stapler versus Medtronic EEA™ Circular Stapler with Tri-Staple™ Technology, and Medtronic EEA™ Circular Stapler with DST™ Technology versus Medtronic EEA™ Circular Stapler with Tri-Staple™ Technology. The index procedure will be defined as the initial procedure in which the device of interest was used. The index admission will include the time from admission to discharge. Propensity score weighting (PSW) will be used for confounding adjustment, followed by log-binomial regression for risk estimation. All eligible patients identified from the Premier Healthcare Database between Jan 2019 and Jun 2022 will be included in the analysis.

Study status

Finalised
Research institution and networks

Institutions

Contact details

Tongtong Wang

Primary lead investigator
Study timelines

Date when funding contract was signed

Planned:
Actual:

Study start date

Planned:
Actual:

Data analysis start date

Planned:
Actual:

Date of final study report

Planned:
Actual:
Sources of funding
Pharmaceutical company and other private sector 

More details on funding

Johnson & Johnson
Study protocol
Initial protocol
English (8.05 MB - PDF)View document
Updated protocol
English (3.98 MB - PDF)View document
Regulatory

Was the study required by a regulatory body?

No

Is the study required by a Risk Management Plan (RMP)?

Not applicable