[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"leadSponsorName\":\"Consorci Sanitari Integral\",\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:":126},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,4,0,[8,46,73,99],{"id":9,"slug":10,"hasResults":11,"nctId":12,"briefTitle":13,"officialTitle":14,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":15,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":18,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":21,"phases":22,"briefSummary":24,"conditions":25,"keywords":27,"overallStatus":33,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":34,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":35,"startDateStruct":38,"completionDateStruct":40,"leadSponsor":42,"locationsCount":45},"100623715","laparoscopic-ultrasound-versus-fluorescence-cholangiography-in-technically-challenging-laparoscopic-cholecystectomy-100623715",false,"NCT07400237","Laparoscopic Ultrasound Versus Fluorescence Cholangiography in Technically Challenging Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy","Laparoscopic Ultrasound Versus Fluorescence Cholangiography in Technically Challenging Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. Multicenter Comparative Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Age ≥ 18 years.\n2. Written informed consent provided.\n3. Indication for laparoscopic cholecystectomy with anticipated technical difficulty due to one or more of the following:\n\n   * Acute cholecystitis.\n   * Previous cholangitis, pancreatitis, or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.\n   * Prior upper abdominal surgery.\n   * Obesity (Body Mass Index ≥ 30 kg\u002Fm²).\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Known allergy to ICG or iodine.\n2. Pregnancy or breastfeeding.\n3. High risk of choledocholithiasis (ESGE guidelines).\n4. Thyroid disease.\n5. Suspected gallbladder malignancy.\n6. ASA class IV-V.\n7. Chronic kidney disease stage \\> IIIb.\n8. Planned open cholecystectomy.","ALL","18 Years",{"count":19,"type":20},62,"ESTIMATED","INTERVENTIONAL",[23],"NA","This is a multicenter, prospective, interventional clinical trial designed to evaluate and compare two intraoperative imaging modalities: laparoscopic ultrasound (LUS) and fluorescence cholangiography with indocyanine green (ICG), for the identification of biliary anatomy in technically challenging laparoscopic cholecystectomy. All enrolled subjects will undergo both LUS and ICG during the index procedure, following a standardized sequence, in order to allow intra-subject comparison. LUS will be performed first, followed by fluorescence cholangiography prior to Calot's triangle dissection.\n\nThe primary endpoint is the successful identification of the critical junction. Secondary endpoints include visualization of individual biliary structures, time to visualization, total operative time, intraoperative and postoperative complications.",[26],"Cholecystectomy",[28,29,30,31,32],"laparoscopic cholecystectomy","laparoscopic ultrasound","fluorescence cholangiography","indocyanine green","biliary injury prevention","RECRUITING","2026-02-03",{"date":36,"type":37},"2026-02-10","ACTUAL",{"date":39,"type":37},"2025-04-01",{"date":41,"type":20},"2027-12",{"name":43,"class":44},"Consorci Sanitari Integral","OTHER",1,{"id":47,"slug":48,"hasResults":11,"nctId":49,"briefTitle":50,"officialTitle":51,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":52,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":53,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":55,"phases":4,"briefSummary":56,"conditions":57,"keywords":60,"overallStatus":33,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":65,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":66,"startDateStruct":68,"completionDateStruct":70,"leadSponsor":72,"locationsCount":45},"100592422","evaluating-residual-congestion-at-discharge-in-acute-heart-failure-patients-100592422","NCT06993220","Evaluating Residual Congestion at Discharge in Acute Heart Failure Patients","Multiparametric Assessment of Residual Congestion at Discharge in Patients With Acute Heart Failure","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age ≥ 18 years.\n* Patients hospitalized for new onset heart failure or worsening heart failure defined by:\n\n  1. Symptoms classified as New York Heart Association class III or IV.\n  2. Clinical or instrumental signs of volume overload (e.g., dyspnea with evidence of pulmonary congestion on X-rays or lung ultrasound, pitting edema, and jugular venous distension).\n  3. Elevated NT-proBNP levels within the first 24 hours of admission (cutoff values: 450 ng\u002FL for patients \\\u003C 50 years; \\>900 ng\u002FL for patients aged 50-75 years; \\>1800 ng\u002FL for patients \\>75 years).\n* Ability to provide informed consent.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Known diagnosis of septicemia.\n* Glomerular filtration rate \\\u003C 15 ml\u002Fmin.\n* Life expectancy \\\u003C 6 months.\n* Active myocarditis.\n* Heart transplant recipients.\n* Patients with ventricular assist devices.\n* Congenital heart diseases.\n* Moderate-to-severe liver disease (Child-Pugh B-C).\n* Patients that will not be followed up by the Heart Failure Unit.",{"count":54,"type":20},500,"OBSERVATIONAL","Treatment of congestion is one of the main goals in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure. Nevertheless, current evidence shows that decongestion is often not achieved and that residual congestion at discharge is strongly associated with poor outcomes. While this association has been demonstrated, previous studies have primarily focused on single parameters of congestion (physical examination, biomarkers, or imaging features). The aim of the study is to assess residual congestion at discharge using a multiparametric approach and to compare the prognostic value of each evaluation strategy. Additionally, the analysis will be supported by artificial intelligence to develop a multiparametric prognostic algorithm that can provide an improved predictive model compared to standard statistical approaches.",[58,59],"Acute Heart Failure (AHF)","Congestive Heart Failure(CHF)",[61,62,63,64],"acute heart failure","residual congestion","multiparametric assessment","risk stratification","2025-07-15",{"date":67,"type":37},"2025-07-18",{"date":69,"type":37},"2025-01-01",{"date":71,"type":20},"2027-01-01",{"name":43,"class":44},{"id":74,"slug":75,"hasResults":11,"nctId":76,"briefTitle":77,"officialTitle":78,"acronym":79,"eligibilityCriteria":80,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":81,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":21,"phases":83,"briefSummary":84,"conditions":85,"keywords":87,"overallStatus":91,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":92,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":93,"startDateStruct":95,"completionDateStruct":96,"leadSponsor":98,"locationsCount":45},"100557109","prevention-of-parastomal-hernias-with-a-preformed-three-dimensional-funnel-shaped-mesh-100557109","NCT06533839","Prevention of Parastomal Hernias With a Preformed Three-dimensional, Funnel-shaped Mesh","Prevention of Parastomal Hernias With a Preformed Three-dimensional, Funnel-shaped Mesh. A Prospective, Multicenter and Randomized Study (PREVEMAC)","PREVEMAC","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients undergoing a definitive colostomy confection\n* Terminal colostomy confection\n* ASA index III or inferior\n* Patients who have given legat authorization to participate in the study\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Lateral colostomy or a colostomy that will be removed posteriorly",{"count":82,"type":20},58,[23],"Parastomal hernia (PH) remains a significant complication following stoma creation, boasting a considerable prevalence in the range of 30 to 50% within the first year post-surgery, a figure that climbs even higher when considering radiological evidence irrespective of clinical symptoms. A noteworthy one-third of these cases necessitate subsequent surgical interventions, yielding suboptimal outcomes both in the short and long term. The clinical manifestations of PH are diverse, ranging from mild inconveniences like fecal leakage and dermatitis to more severe and potentially life-threatening complications such as intestinal obstruction, hernia incarceration, and ischemia.\n\nVarious systematic reviews and meta-analyses have advocated for the adoption of prophylactic meshes, although defining precise incidence and recurrence rates has proven challenging due to methodological disparities across studies. Keyhole and modified Sugarbaker techniques dominate laparoscopic and robotic approaches, yet none offer ideal outcomes.\n\nThe aim of this study is to evaluate the decrease of postoperative parastomal hernia using this three-dimensional, funnel-shaped mesh.",[86],"Parastomal Hernia",[88,89,90],"Parastomal hernia","end colostomy","prophylactic mesh","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2024-07-30",{"date":94,"type":37},"2024-08-01",{"date":94,"type":20},{"date":97,"type":20},"2029-08-01",{"name":43,"class":44},{"id":100,"slug":101,"hasResults":11,"nctId":102,"briefTitle":103,"officialTitle":104,"acronym":105,"eligibilityCriteria":106,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":107,"enrollmentInfo":108,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":21,"phases":110,"briefSummary":111,"conditions":112,"keywords":114,"overallStatus":91,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":118,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":119,"startDateStruct":121,"completionDateStruct":123,"leadSponsor":125,"locationsCount":4},"100512161","two-hypoabsorption-techniques-for-the-treatment-of-type-iii-obesity-oasis-100512161","NCT05948852","Two Hypoabsorption Techniques for the Treatment of Type III Obesity (OASIS)","Randomized Prospective Study Comparing Two Hypoabsorption Techniques for the Treatment of Type III Obesity (Body Mass Index Between 45 - 49.9 Kg\u002Fm2): Single Anastomose Duodenal Switch (SADI-S) and Single Anastomose Gastric By-pass (OAGBP)","OASIS","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients over 18 and under 65 who meet criteria for bariatric surgery.\n* Maximum BMI between 45 and 50 kg\u002Fm2 and indication for surgery in a time\n* Signature of the informed consent of the study\n* Patients suitable for laparoscopic surgery\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Previous bariatric surgery\n* 2-stage surgery\n* Contraindication for hypoabsorptive surgery due to previous pathology: inflammatory bowel disease, transplant recipient or transplant candidate, previous intestinal resection surgery\n* Other associated surgical procedures in the same intervention.\n* Conversion to laparotomy","65 Years",{"count":109,"type":20},96,[23],"This study aims to compare the percentage of total weight lost in long-term follow-up after two surgical interventions (SADIS and OAGB) in patients with morbid obesity BMI between 45-49.9.",[113],"Obesity, Morbid",[115,116,117],"OAGB","SADIS","bariatric surgery","2023-07-10",{"date":120,"type":37},"2023-07-17",{"date":122,"type":20},"2023-07",{"date":124,"type":20},"2029-07",{"name":43,"class":44},""]