134 resultados para Randomized trial
Resumo:
PURPOSE Continuous intraoperative norepinephrine infusion combined with restrictive deferred hydration improves surgical field visibility, and significantly decreases intraoperative blood loss and postoperative complications in patients undergoing radical cystectomy and urinary diversion. We determined whether the intraoperative fluid regimen would affect functional results (continence and erectile function) 1 year after orthotopic ileal bladder substitution. MATERIALS AND METHODS We analyzed a subgroup of 93 patients who received an ileal orthotopic bladder substitute. The subgroup was part of a randomized trial in 167 patients initially allocated to continuous norepinephrine administration starting with 2 μg/kg per hour combined with 1 ml/kg per hour initially and 3 ml/kg per hour crystalloid infusion after cystectomy (norepinephrine/low volume group of 51) or a standard crystalloid infusion of 6 ml/kg per hour throughout surgery (42 controls). We prospectively assessed daytime and nighttime continence, and erectile function 1 year postoperatively in the 93-patient subgroup. RESULTS Daytime continence was reported by 44 of 51 patients (86%) in the norepinephrine/low volume group and by 27 of 42 controls (64%) (p = 0.016), and nighttime continence was reported by 38 (75%) and 25 (60%), respectively (p = 0.077). Erectile function recovery was reported by 26 of 33 preoperatively potent patients (79%) in the norepinephrine/low volume group and by 11 of 29 controls (38%) (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS Patients who undergo radical cystectomy and orthotopic bladder substitution with continuous norepinephrine infusion and restrictive hydration during surgery have significantly better daytime continence and erectile function 1 year postoperatively.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND Anticoagulation is required during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures. Although an optimal regimen has not been determined, heparin is mainly used. Direct thrombin inhibition with bivalirudin may be an effective alternative to heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent in this setting. OBJECTIVES The goal of this study was to determine whether bivalirudin offers an alternative to heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent in patients undergoing TAVR. METHODS A total of 802 patients with aortic stenosis were randomized to undergo transfemoral TAVR with bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin during the procedure. The 2 primary endpoints were major bleeding within 48 h or before hospital discharge (whichever occurred first) and 30-day net adverse clinical events, defined as the combination of major adverse cardiovascular events (all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and major bleeding. RESULTS Anticoagulation with bivalirudin versus heparin did not meet superiority because it did not result in significantly lower rates of major bleeding at 48 h (6.9% vs. 9.0%; relative risk: 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48 to 1.23; p = 0.27) or net adverse cardiovascular events at 30 days (14.4% vs. 16.1%; relative risk: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.24; risk difference: -1.72; 95% CI: -6.70 to 3.25; p = 0.50); regarding the latter, the prespecified noninferiority hypothesis was met (pnoninferiority < 0.01). Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events at 48 h were not significantly different (3.5% vs. 4.8%; relative risk: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.37 to 1.43; p = 0.35). At 48 h, the bivalirudin group had significantly fewer myocardial infarctions but more acute kidney injury events than the heparin group; at 30 days, these differences were no longer significant. CONCLUSIONS In this randomized trial of TAVR procedural pharmacotherapy, bivalirudin did not reduce rates of major bleeding at 48 h or net adverse cardiovascular events within 30 days compared with heparin. Although superiority was not shown, the noninferiority hypothesis was met with respect to the latter factor. Given the lower cost, heparin should remain the standard of care, and bivalirudin can be an alternative anticoagulant option in patients unable to receive heparin in TAVR. (International, Multi-center, Open-label, Randomized Controlled Trial in Patients Undergoing TAVR to Determine the Treatment Effect [Both Safety and Efficacy] of Using Bivalirudin Instead of UFH [BRAVO-2/3]; NCT01651780).
Resumo:
AIMS Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) feature thrombus-rich lesions with large necrotic core, which are usually associated with delayed arterial healing and impaired stent-related outcomes. The use of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (Absorb) has the potential to overcome these limitations owing to restoration of native vessel lumen and physiology at long term. The purpose of this randomized trial was to compare the arterial healing response at short term, as a surrogate for safety and efficacy, between the Absorb and the metallic everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in patients with STEMI. METHODS AND RESULTS ABSORB-STEMI TROFI II was a multicentre, single-blind, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial. Patients with STEMI who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly allocated 1:1 to treatment with the Absorb or EES. The primary endpoint was the 6-month optical frequency domain imaging healing score (HS) based on the presence of uncovered and/or malapposed stent struts and intraluminal filling defects. Main secondary endpoint included the device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) according to the Academic Research Consortium definition. Between 06 January 2014 and 21 September 2014, 191 patients (Absorb [n = 95] or EES [n = 96]; mean age 58.6 years old; 17.8% females) were enrolled at eight centres. At 6 months, HS was lower in the Absorb arm when compared with EES arm [1.74 (2.39) vs. 2.80 (4.44); difference (90% CI) -1.06 (-1.96, -0.16); Pnon-inferiority <0.001]. Device-oriented composite endpoint was also comparably low between groups (1.1% Absorb vs. 0% EES). One case of definite subacute stent thrombosis occurred in the Absorb arm (1.1% vs. 0% EES; P = ns). CONCLUSION Stenting of culprit lesions with Absorb in the setting of STEMI resulted in a nearly complete arterial healing which was comparable with that of metallic EES at 6 months. These findings provide the basis for further exploration in clinically oriented outcome trials.
Resumo:
Preliminary results of a randomized trial have suggested that total lesion coverage with drug-eluting stents (DES) is not necessary in the presence of diffuse disease of nonuniform severity. In the present study, we report long-term results of this trial.
Resumo:
OBJECTIVES: We assessed the impact of vessel size on angiographic and long-term clinical outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) within a randomized trial (SIRTAX [Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Compared With Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent for Coronary Revascularization]). BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention in small-vessel disease is associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). METHODS: A total of 1,012 patients were randomly assigned to treatment with SES (n = 503) or PES (n = 509). A stratified analysis of angiographic and clinical outcome was performed up to 2 years after PCI according to size of the treated vessel (reference vessel diameter < or =2.75 vs. >2.75 mm). RESULTS: Of 1,012 patients, 370 patients (37%) with 495 lesions underwent stent implantation in small vessels only, 504 patients (50%) with 613 lesions in large vessels only, and 138 patients (14%) with 301 lesions in both small and large vessels (mixed). In patients with small-vessel stents, SES reduced MACE by 55% (10.4% vs. 21.4%; p = 0.004), mainly driven by a 69% reduction of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (6.0% vs. 17.7%; p = 0.001) compared with PES at 2 years. In patients with large- and mixed-vessel stents, rates of MACE (large: 10.4% vs. 13.1%; p = 0.33; mixed: 16.7% vs. 18.0%; p = 0.83) and TLR (large: 6.9% vs. 8.6%; p = 0.47; mixed: 16.7% vs. 15.4%; p = 0.86) were similar for SES and PES. There were no significant differences with respect to death and myocardial infarction between the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with PES, SES more effectively reduced MACE and TLR in small-vessel disease. Differences between SES and PES appear less pronounced in patients with large- and mixed-vessel disease. (The SIRTAX trial; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00297661?order=1; NCT00297661).
Resumo:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this analysis was to investigate trastuzumab-associated cardiac adverse effects in breast cancer patients after completion of (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Herceptin Adjuvant (HERA) trial is a three-group, multicenter, open-label randomized trial that compared 1 or 2 years of trastuzumab given once every 3 weeks with observation in patients with HER-2-positive breast cancer. Only patients who after completion of (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy had normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF > or = 55%) were eligible. A repeat LVEF assessment was performed in case of cardiac dysfunction. RESULTS: Data were available for 1,693 patients randomly assigned to 1 year trastuzumab and 1,693 patients randomly assigned to observation. The incidence of trastuzumab discontinuation due to cardiac disorders was low (4.3%). The incidence of cardiac end points was higher in the trastuzumab group compared with observation (severe congestive heart failure [CHF], 0.60% v 0.00%; symptomatic CHF, 2.15% v 0.12%; confirmed significant LVEF drops, 3.04% v 0.53%). Most patients with cardiac dysfunction recovered in fewer than 6 months. Patients with trastuzumab-associated cardiac dysfunction were treated with higher cumulative doses of doxorubicin (287 mg/m(2) v 257 mg/m(2)) or epirubicin (480 mg/m(2) v 422 mg/m(2)) and had a lower screening LVEF and a higher body mass index. CONCLUSION: Given the clear benefit in disease-free survival, the low incidence of cardiac adverse events, and the suggestion that cardiac dysfunction might be reversible, adjuvant trastuzumab should be considered for treatment of breast cancer patients who fulfill the HERA trial eligibility criteria.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: Second-generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and third generation biolimus-eluting stents (BES) have been shown to be superior to first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) and second-generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). However, neointimal proliferation and very late stent thrombosis is still an unresolved issue of drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation overall. The Absorb™ (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, IL, USA) is the first CE approved DES with a bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) thought to reduce long-term complication rates. The EVERBIO II trial was set up to compare the BVS safety and efficacy with both EES and BES in all patients viable for inclusion. METHODS/DESIGN: The EVERBIO II trial is a single-center, assessor-blinded, randomized trial. The study population consists of all patients aged≥18 years old undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Exclusion criterion is where the lesion cannot be treated with BVS (reference vessel diameter>4.0 mm). A total of 240 patients will be enrolled and randomly assigned into 3 groups of 80 with either BVS, EES or BES implantation. All patients will undergo a follow-up angiography study at 9 months. Clinical follow-up for up to 5 years will be conducted by telephone. The primary endpoint is in-segment late lumen loss at 9 months measured by quantitative coronary angiography. Secondary endpoints are patient-oriented major adverse cardiac event (MACE) (death, myocardial infarction and target-vessel revascularization), device-oriented MACE (cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target-lesion revascularization), stent thrombosis according to ARC and binary restenosis at follow-up 12 months angiography. DISCUSSION: EVERBIO II is an independent, randomized study, aiming to compare the clinical efficacy, angiographic outcomes and safety of BVS, EES and BES in all comer patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial listed in clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01711931.
Resumo:
OBJECTIVE Recent small single-center data indicate that the current hemodynamic parameters used to diagnose critical limb ischemia are insensitive. We investigated the validity of the societal guidelines-recommended hemodynamic parameters against core laboratory-adjudicated angiographic data from the multicenter IN.PACT DEEP (RandomIzed AmPhirion DEEP DEB vs StAndard PTA for the treatment of below the knee Critical limb ischemia) Trial. METHODS Of the 358 patients in the IN.PACT DEEP Trial to assess drug-eluting balloon vs standard balloon angioplasty for infrapopliteal disease, 237 had isolated infrapopliteal disease with an available ankle-brachial index (ABI), and only 40 of the latter had available toe pressure measurements. The associations between ABI, ankle pressure, and toe pressure with tibial runoff, Rutherford category, and plantar arch were examined according to the cutoff points recommended by the societal guidelines. Abnormal tibial runoff was defined as severely stenotic (≥70%) or occluded and scored as one-, two-, or three-vessel disease. A stenotic or occluded plantar arch was considered abnormal. RESULTS Only 14 of 237 patients (6%) had an ABI <0.4. Abnormal ankle pressure, defined as <50 mm Hg if Rutherford category 4 and <70 mm Hg if Rutherford category 5 or 6, was found only in 37 patients (16%). Abnormal toe pressure, defined as <30 mm Hg if Rutherford category 4 and <50 mm Hg if Rutherford category 5 or 6, was found in 24 of 40 patients (60%) with available measurements. Importantly, 29% of these 24 patients had an ABI within normal reference ranges. A univariate multinomial logistic regression found no association between the above hemodynamic parameters and the number of diseased infrapopliteal vessels. However, there was a significant paradoxic association where patients with Rutherford category 6 had higher ABI and ankle pressure than those with Rutherford category 5. Similarly, there was no association between ABI and pedal arch patency. CONCLUSIONS The current recommended hemodynamic parameters fail to identify a significant portion of patients with lower extremity ulcers and angiographically proven severe disease. Toe pressure has better sensitivity and should be considered in all patients with critical limb ischemia.
Resumo:
Antifibrinolytic agents are often used in different clinical situations, especially in cardiac surgery. During several years, aprotinin was the drug of choice because more than antifibrinolytic properties, aprotinin offers a direct effect on kallikrein and inflammatory pathways. In 2008, The Blood Conservation Using Antifibrinolytics in a Randomized Trial (BART) initiated a discussion about real risks associated with aprotinin administration. Tranexamic acid and epsilon-aminocaproic acid appear to be interesting alternatives in our daily practice. The exact mechanism of action, the pharmacokinetic parameters, the efficacy, and the safety profile need to be clarified for lysine analogs. In this review, the different antifibrinolytics will be described with a special interest into the route of work, and recent patents. Current studies about the pharmacokinetic and the pharmacodynamic profile will be described, and finally the benefit-to-risk balance in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass will be discussed.
Resumo:
Whether zidovudine (AZT)-associated lipoatrophy occurrence differs by concomitant exposure to protease (PIs) or non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) remains unclear. Baseline body composition data from a randomized trial in subjects stable on first-line AZT-based therapy were used to explore this issue.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: Abstracts of presentations at scientific meetings are usually available only in conference proceedings. If subsequent full publication of abstract results is based on the magnitude or direction of study results, publication bias may result. Publication bias, in turn, creates problems for those conducting systematic reviews or relying on the published literature for evidence. OBJECTIVES: To determine the rate at which abstract results are subsequently published in full, and the time between meeting presentation and full publication. To assess the association between study characteristics and full publication. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, reference lists, and author files. Date of most recent search: June 2003. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all reports that examined the subsequent full publication rate of biomedical results initially presented as abstracts or in summary form. Follow-up of abstracts had to be at least two years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers extracted data. We calculated the weighted mean full publication rate and time to full publication. Dichotomous variables were analyzed using relative risk and random effects models. We assessed time to publication using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Combining data from 79 reports (29,729 abstracts) resulted in a weighted mean full publication rate of 44.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 43.9 to 45.1). Survival analyses resulted in an estimated publication rate at 9 years of 52.6% for all studies, 63.1% for randomized or controlled clinical trials, and 49.3% for other types of study designs.'Positive' results defined as any 'significant' result showed an association with full publication (RR = 1.30; CI 1.14 to 1.47), as did 'positive' results defined as a result favoring the experimental treatment (RR =1.17; CI 1.02 to 1.35), and 'positive' results emanating from randomized or controlled clinical trials (RR = 1.18, CI 1.07 to 1.30).Other factors associated with full publication include oral presentation (RR = 1.28; CI 1.09 to 1.49); acceptance for meeting presentation (RR = 1.78; CI 1.50 to 2.12); randomized trial study design (RR = 1.24; CI 1.14 to 1.36); and basic research (RR = 0.79; CI 0.70 to 0.89). Higher quality of abstracts describing randomized or controlled clinical trials was also associated with full publication (RR = 1.30, CI 1.00 to 1.71). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Only 63% of results from abstracts describing randomized or controlled clinical trials are published in full. 'Positive' results were more frequently published than not 'positive' results.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: Persistent hyperparathyroidism after renal transplantation affects bone and allografts. Cinacalcet, a calcimimetic, reduces serum calcium and PTH in renal transplant recipients with persistent hyperparathyroidism. Here, we address the question whether this effect of cinacalcet persists after withdrawal. METHODS: Therefore, cinacalcet was stopped after 12 months treatment in 10 stable renal transplant patients. Serum calcium, phosphate, PTH, creatinine and cystatin C were monitored for 3 months. RESULTS: Serum calcium, normalized in nine patients before cessation of cinacalcet (2.32 +/- 0.05mmol/l, mean +/- SEM), increased after 3 months of discontinuation by 0.17 +/- 0.04mmol/l, P < 0.05, but remained within the normal range in eight patients. Compared with the time point of cessation, PTH remained unchanged or decreased further after 3 months without therapy in six patients. Measurements of cystatin C suggested an improvement of the glomerular filtration rate after cessation in 9 out of 10 patients (1.55 +/- 0.09 vs 1.33 +/- 0.12 mg/l, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: First, a beneficial effect of cinacalcet beyond the duration of a 12-month therapy appears to be present in some patients and second, the previously suspected influence of cinacalcet therapy on renal function is reversible. Thus, it is reasonable to consider a trial of cinacalcet cessation to identify these patients. The optimal time point for such a discontinuation is unknown. The present observations are preliminary. They clearly require a prospective randomized trial for definitive confirmation.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: It is unclear whether intraarterial (IAT) or intravenous (IVT) thrombolysis is more effective for ischemic stroke with hyperdense middle cerebral artery sign (HMCAS) on computed tomography (CT). The aim of this study was to compare IAT and IVT in stroke patients with HMCAS. METHODS: Comparison of data from 2 stroke units with similar management of stroke associated with HMCAS, except that 1 unit performed IAT with urokinase and the other IVT with plasminogen activator. Time to treatment was up to 6 hours for IAT and up to 3 hours for IVT. Outcome was measured by mortality and the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), dichotomized at 3 months into favorable (mRS 0 to 2) and unfavorable (mRS 3 to 6). RESULTS: One hundred twelve patients exhibited a HMCAS, 55 of 268 patients treated with IAT and 57 of 249 patients who underwent IVT. Stroke severity at baseline and patient age were similar in both groups. Mean time to treatment was longer in the IAT group (244+/-63 minutes) than in the IVT group (156+/-21 minutes; P=0.0001). However, favorable outcome was more frequent after IAT (n=29, 53%) than after IVT (n=13, 23%; P=0.001), and mortality was lower after IAT (n=4, 7%) than after IVT (n=13, 23%; P=0.022). After multiple regression analysis IAT was associated with a more favorable outcome than IVT (P=0.003) but similar mortality (P=0.192). CONCLUSIONS: In this observational study intraarterial thrombolysis was more beneficial than IVT in the specific group of stroke patients presenting with HMCAS on CT, even though IAT was started later. Our results indicate that a randomized trial comparing both thrombolytic treatments in patients with middle cerebral artery occlusion is warranted.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: No controlled, randomized trial has investigated whether intravenous, intra-arterial (IAT), or mechanical thrombolysis is beneficial in children with ischemic stroke. We report 2 children who underwent IAT for acute ischemic stroke and include them in a review about intravenous thrombolysis, IAT, and mechanical thrombolysis for childhood stroke. METHODS: We searched in MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies that reported on treatment of childhood stroke with intravenous thrombolysis, IAT, or mechanical thrombolysis in the presence of occlusion of the basilar artery, sphenoidal, or insular middle cerebral artery. To be included in this review, the following findings had to be reported: (1) stroke severity at presentation; (2) cerebral imaging findings before thrombolysis; (3) time to treatment; (4) dose of the thrombolytic agent; (5) pre- and postinterventional angiographic findings in IAT; and (6) outcome assessed at hospital discharge or within 12 months after thrombolysis. RESULTS: Adequate data were available in 17 children (including our 2 own cases) who underwent intravenous thrombolysis (n=6), IAT (n=10), or mechanical thrombolysis (n=1). No symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred, but 2 asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhages were present. Sixteen children (94%) survived, and 12 (71%) had a good outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0 or 1). CONCLUSIONS: The available data about thrombolysis in pediatric stroke are limited. They suggest that this treatment may be beneficial in children with ischemic stroke. Controlled, randomized trials are needed to determine whether thrombolysis is useful in childhood stroke.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: Screening programmes are promoted to control transmission of and prevent female reproductive tract morbidity caused by genital chlamydia. The objective of this study was to examine the effectiveness of register-based and opportunistic chlamydia screening interventions. METHODS: We searched seven electronic databases (Cinahl, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, DARE, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO and SIGLE) without language restrictions from January 1990 to October 2007 and reference lists of retrieved articles to identify studies published before 1990. We included studies examining primary outcomes (pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy, infertility, adverse pregnancy outcomes, neonatal infection, chlamydia prevalence) and harms of chlamydia screening in men and non-pregnant and pregnant women. We extracted data in duplicate and synthesized the data narratively or used random effects meta-analysis, where appropriate. RESULTS: We included six systematic reviews, five randomized trials, one non-randomized comparative study and one time trend study. Five reviews recommended screening of women at high risk of chlamydia. Two randomized trials found that register-based screening of women at high risk of chlamydia and of female and male high school students reduced the incidence of pelvic inflammatory disease in women at 1 year. Methodological inadequacies could have overestimated the observed benefits. One randomized trial showed that opportunistic screening in women undergoing surgical termination of pregnancy reduced post-abortal rates of pelvic inflammatory disease compared with no screening. We found no randomized trials showing a benefit of opportunistic screening in other populations, no trial examining the effects of more than one screening round and no trials examining the harms of chlamydia screening. CONCLUSION: There is an absence of evidence supporting opportunistic chlamydia screening in the general population younger than 25 years, the most commonly recommended approach. Equipoise remains, so high-quality randomized trials of multiple rounds of screening with biological outcome measures are still needed to determine the balance of benefits and harms of chlamydia screening.