Comparison of everolimus- and biolimus-eluting stents with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold stents: study protocol of the randomized controlled EVERBIO II

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.

Acupuncture for post anaesthetic recovery and postoperative pain: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND We report on the design and implementation of a study protocol entitled Acupuncture randomised trial for post anaesthetic recovery and postoperative pain - a pilot study (ACUARP) designed to investigate the effectiveness of acupuncture therapy performed in the perioperative period on post anaesthetic recovery and postoperative pain. METHODS/DESIGN The study is designed as a randomised controlled pilot trial with three arms and partial double blinding. We will compare (a) press needle acupuncture, (b) no treatment and (c) press plaster acupressure in a standardised anaesthetic setting. Seventy-five patients scheduled for laparoscopic surgery to the uterus or ovaries will be allocated randomly to one of the three trial arms. The total observation period will begin one day before surgery and end on the second postoperative day. Twelve press needles and press plasters are to be administered preoperatively at seven acupuncture points. The primary outcome measure will be time from extubation to 'ready for discharge' from the post anaesthesia care unit (in minutes). The 'ready for discharge' end point will be assessed using three different scores: the Aldrete score, the Post Anaesthetic Discharge Scoring System and an In-House score. Secondary outcome measures will comprise pre-, intra- and postoperative variables (which are anxiety, pain, nausea and vomiting, concomitant medication). DISCUSSION The results of this study will provide information on whether acupuncture may improve patient post anaesthetic recovery. Comparing acupuncture with acupressure will provide insight into potential therapeutic differences between invasive and non-invasive acupuncture techniques. TRIAL REGISTRATION NCT01816386 (First received: 28 October 2012).

Effect of standardized training on the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: a study protocol

BACKGROUND The Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool has been widely embraced by the systematic review community, but several studies have reported that its reliability is low. We aim to investigate whether training of raters, including objective and standardized instructions on how to assess risk of bias, can improve the reliability of this tool. We describe the methods that will be used in this investigation and present an intensive standardized training package for risk of bias assessment that could be used by contributors to the Cochrane Collaboration and other reviewers. METHODS/DESIGN This is a pilot study. We will first perform a systematic literature review to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that will be used for risk of bias assessment. Using the identified RCTs, we will then do a randomized experiment, where raters will be allocated to two different training schemes: minimal training and intensive standardized training. We will calculate the chance-corrected weighted Kappa with 95% confidence intervals to quantify within- and between-group Kappa agreement for each of the domains of the risk of bias tool. To calculate between-group Kappa agreement, we will use risk of bias assessments from pairs of raters after resolution of disagreements. Between-group Kappa agreement will quantify the agreement between the risk of bias assessment of raters in the training groups and the risk of bias assessment of experienced raters. To compare agreement of raters under different training conditions, we will calculate differences between Kappa values with 95% confidence intervals. DISCUSSION This study will investigate whether the reliability of the risk of bias tool can be improved by training raters using standardized instructions for risk of bias assessment. One group of inexperienced raters will receive intensive training on risk of bias assessment and the other will receive minimal training. By including a control group with minimal training, we will attempt to mimic what many review authors commonly have to do, that is-conduct risk of bias assessment in RCTs without much formal training or standardized instructions. If our results indicate that an intense standardized training does improve the reliability of the RoB tool, our study is likely to help improve the quality of risk of bias assessments, which is a central component of evidence synthesis.