Rationale and design of a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled multicenter trial to study efficacy, security, and long term effects of intermittent repeated levosimendan administration in patients with advanced heart failure: LAICA study.

BACKGROUND Advanced heart failure (HF) is associated with high morbidity and mortality; it represents a major burden for the health system. Episodes of acute decompensation requiring frequent and prolonged hospitalizations account for most HF-related expenditure. Inotropic drugs are frequently used during hospitalization, but rarely in out-patients. The LAICA clinical trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of monthly levosimendan infusion in patients with advanced HF to reduce the incidence of hospital admissions for acute HF decompensation. METHODS The LAICA study is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial. It aims to recruit 213 out-patients, randomized to receive either a 24-h infusion of levosimendan at 0.1 μg/kg/min dose, without a loading dose, every 30 days, or placebo. RESULTS The main objective is to assess the incidence of admission for acute HF worsening during 12 months. Secondarily, the trial will assess the effect of intermittent levosimendan on other variables, including the time in days from randomization to first admission for acute HF worsening, mortality and serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS The LAICA trial results could allow confirmation of the usefulness of intermittent levosimendan infusion in reducing the rate of hospitalization for HF worsening in advanced HF outpatients.

Paternity and health services. Qualitative research on men's experiences during pregnancy, delivery and postpartum of theirs partners

Background: Little research has been carried out with regards to the inclusion of men during the birth process. The objective of this paper involves exploring the needs and expectations of the health services manifested by a group of fathers as a result of their experience during the birth process. Methods: Qualitative research was carried out in Granada in 2004 via individual interviews with fathers who showed shared responsibility in the upbringing. The profile is: employment, medium-high educational level, one or more child: 0-6 months of age. The transcript was subsequently submitted to hermeneutic analysis. Results: Some semantic constructs are: 1) Health Services do not concede the women as protagonists, 2) Birth process is depending on the body. Fathers can only support and fight for the relevance of men, 3) Men seem like “invisible”, 4) Health services inhibit their participation, and 5) have dealings with fathers according to their gender roles. The participants address the relationship between expectations of care during the birth process and unsatisfied demands, and the manner in which they employ the obstacles encountered within health services that inhibit their participation as arguments that confirm their separation from the process. Conclusions: This paper draws attention to the limited scope of the provision of healthcare during the birth process in terms of protagonism afforded to fathers. Indeed, despite their requisitory discourse, the interviewees manifest contradictory attitudes in the face of changes that require them to make commitments. We identify elements that could be improved to adapt services to the needs of fathers and vice versa.