Trials
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study
PERC rule to exclude the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in emergency low-risk patients: study protocol for the PROPER randomized controlled study.
The diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism (PE) in the emergency department (ED) is crucial. As emergency physicians fear missing this potential life-threatening condition, PE tends to be over-investigated, exposing patients to unnecessary risks and uncertain benefit in terms of outcome. The Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) is an eight-item block of clinical criteria that can identify patients who can safely be discharged from the ED without further investigation for PE. The endorsement of this rule could markedly reduce the number of irradiative imaging studies, ED length of stay, and rate of adverse events resulting from both diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Several retrospective and prospective studies have shown the safety and benefits of the PERC rule for PE diagnosis in low-risk patients, but the validity of this rule is still controversial. We hypothesize that in European patients with a low gestalt clinical probability and who are PERC-negative, PE can be safely ruled out and the patient discharged without further testing. ⋯ The PERC rule has the potential to decrease the number of irradiative imaging studies in the ED, and is reported to be safe. However, no randomized study has ever validated the safety of PERC. Furthermore, some studies have challenged the safety of a PERC-based strategy to rule-out PE, especially in Europe where the prevalence of PE diagnosed in the ED is high. The PROPER study should provide high-quality evidence to settle this issue. If it confirms the safety of the PERC rule, physicians will be able to reduce the number of investigations, associated subsequent adverse events, costs, and ED length of stay for patients with a low clinical probability of PE.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study
Comparison of two strategies for initiating renal replacement therapy in the intensive care unit: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (AKIKI).
There is currently no validated strategy for the timing of renal replacement therapy (RRT) for acute kidney injury (AKI) in the intensive care unit (ICU) when short-term life-threatening metabolic abnormalities are absent. No adequately powered prospective randomized study has addressed this issue to date. As a result, significant practice heterogeneity exists and may expose patients to either unnecessary hazardous procedures or undue delay in RRT. ⋯ The AKIKI study will be one of the very few large randomized controlled trials evaluating mortality according to the timing of RRT in critically ill patients with AKI classification stage 3 (KDIGO 2012). Results should help clinicians decide when to initiate RRT.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Clinical Trial
Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation for pediatric epilepsy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
Recently, clinical observations reported the potential benefit of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) for pediatric epilepsy. Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (ta-VNS) is a newer non-invasive VNS, making it more accessible for treating pediatric epilepsy, yet there is limited clinical evidence for its effectiveness. ⋯ Results of this trial will help clarify whether ta-VNS treatment is beneficial for pediatric patients, and will make clear whether the anticonvulsive effect of ta-VNS is correlated with the improvement of sympathovagal imbalance.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study
Apixaban versus Antiplatelet drugs or no antithrombotic drugs after anticoagulation-associated intraCerebral HaEmorrhage in patients with Atrial Fibrillation (APACHE-AF): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.
There is a marked lack of evidence on the optimal prevention of ischaemic stroke and other thromboembolic events in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and a recent intracerebral haemorrhage during treatment with oral anticoagulation. These patients are currently treated with oral anticoagulants, antiplatelet drugs, or no antithrombotic treatment, depending on personal and institutional preferences. Compared with warfarin, the direct oral anticoagulant apixaban reduces the risk of stroke or systemic embolism, intracranial haemorrhage, and case fatality in patients with atrial fibrillation. Compared with aspirin, apixaban reduces the risk of stroke or systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation, and has a similar risk of intracerebral haemorrhage. Novel oral anticoagulants have not been evaluated in patients with atrial fibrillation and a recent intracerebral haemorrhage. To inform a phase III trial, the phase II Apixaban versus Antiplatelet drugs or no antithrombotic drugs after anticoagulation-associated intraCerebral HaEmorrhage in patients with Atrial Fibrillation (APACHE-AF) trial aims to obtain estimates of the rates of vascular death or non-fatal stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation and a recent anticoagulation-associated intracerebral haemorrhage treated with apixaban and in those in whom oral anticoagulation is avoided. ⋯ APACHE-AF is a phase II, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised clinical trial with masked outcome assessment. One hundred adults with a history of atrial fibrillation and a recent intracerebral haemorrhage during treatment with anticoagulation in whom clinical equipoise exists on the optimal stroke prevention strategy will be enrolled in 14 hospitals in The Netherlands. These patients will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either apixaban or to avoiding oral anticoagulation. Patients in the control group may be treated with antiplatelet drugs at the discretion of the treating physician. The primary outcome is the composite of vascular death or non-fatal stroke during follow-up. We aim to include 100 patients in 2.5 years. All patients will be followed-up for the duration of the study, but at least for 1 year. Recruitment commenced in September 2014 and is ongoing. This trial is funded by the Dutch Heart Foundation (2012 T077) and ZonMW (015008048).
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study
Safety and efficacy of colistin versus meropenem in the empirical treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia as part of a macro-project funded by the Seventh Framework Program of the European Commission studying off-patent antibiotics: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is one of the most common and severe hospital-adquired infections, and multidrugresistant gram-negative bacilli (MDR-GNB) constitute the main etiology in many countries. Inappropriate empiric antimicrobial treatment is associated with increased mortality. In this context, the empirical treatment of choice for VAP is unknown. Colistin, is now the antimicrobial with greatest in vitro activity against MDR-GNB. ⋯ Currently, there is no study being undertaken which analyzes empiric treatment of (VAP) with a suspicion of multi-resistance. Colistin, an off-patent antibiotic commercialized for more than 60 years, could widen the antibiotic alternatives for a high-mortality illness aggravated by antibiotic resistance.