Peritoneal Ultrafiltration for Heart Failure: Lessons from a Randomized Controlled Trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. 486-489
Author(s):  
Hari Dukka ◽  
Philip A. Kalra ◽  
Martin Wilkie ◽  
Sunil Bhandari ◽  
Simon J. Davies ◽  
...  

Peritoneal ultrafiltration (PuF) has been employed for severe heart failure (HF), but evidence for its benefit is lacking. The Peritoneal Dialysis for Heart Failure (PDHF) study was a multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial which aimed to investigate this issue. The trial stopped early due to inadequate recruitment. We describe methods, trial activity, and lessons learned. The trial aimed to recruit 130 participants with severe diuretic-resistant HF (New York Heart Association [NYHA] 3/4) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 3/4 on optimal medical treatment for ≥ 4 weeks from 6 UK centers. Participants were randomized to either continuation of conventional HF treatment or to additionally receiving PuF (1 overnight exchange using Icodextrin dialysate). Primary outcome was change in 6-minute walk test (6MWT) between baseline and 28 weeks (end of trial). Secondary outcomes were changes in patient reported quality of life as assessed by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, short form 36 (SF 36) health survey results, hospitalization, and mortality. Over a 2-year period, 290 patients were screened from which only 20 met inclusion criteria and 10 were recruited. Reasons for ineligibility were fluctuating estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), suboptimal HF treatment, frailty, and patients being too unwell for randomization. Barriers to recruitment included patient frailty, with some participants considered only when they were at end of life, unwillingness to engage in an invasive therapy, and suboptimal coordination between cardiology and renal services. This is a challenging patient group in which to perform research, and lessons learned from the peritoneal dialysis (PD)-HF trial will be helpful in the planning of future studies in this area.

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 438-444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrik Lyngå ◽  
Hans Persson ◽  
Ann Hägg-Martinell ◽  
Ewa Hägglund ◽  
Inger Hagerman ◽  
...  

Trials ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hailong Zhang ◽  
Jiansheng Li ◽  
Xueqing Yu ◽  
Suyun Li ◽  
Haifeng Wang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The incidence, mortality, and prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are high in China. Acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) are important events in the management of COPD because they negatively impact health status, rates of hospitalization and readmission, and disease progression. AECOPD have been effectively treated with Chinese medicine for a long time. The aim of this proposed trial is to assess the therapeutic effect of Chinese medicine (CM) on AECOPD. Methods/design This proposed study is a multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group randomized controlled trial (RCT). We will randomly assign 378 participants with AECOPD into two groups in a 1:1 ratio. On the basis of health education and conventional treatment, the intervention group will be treated with CM, and the control group is given CM placebo according to CM syndrome. Patients are randomized to either receive CM or placebo, 10 g/packet, twice daily. The double-blind treatment lasts for 2 weeks and is followed up for 4 weeks. The main outcome is the COPD Assessment Test; secondary outcomes are treatment failure rate, treatment success rate, length of hospital stay, AECOPD readmission rate, intubation rate, mortality, dyspnea, the 36-item Short Form Health Survey, and the COPD patient-reported outcome scale. We will document these outcomes faithfully at the beginning of the study, 2 weeks after treatment, and at the 4 weeks follow-up. Discussion This high-quality RCT with strict methodology and few design deficits will help to prove the effectiveness of CM for AECOPD. We hope this trial will provide useful evidence for developing a therapeutic schedule with CM for patients with AECOPD. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03428412. Registered on 4 February 2018.


2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Olufemi R. Ayeni ◽  
Jon Karlsson ◽  
Diane Heels-Ansdell ◽  
Lehana Thabane ◽  
...  

Background: Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is a condition known to cause hip pain in young adults. Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of the surgical correction of FAI via arthroscopic osteochondroplasty with or without labral repair compared with arthroscopic lavage of the hip joint with or without labral repair. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: A total of 220 male and female participants aged 18 to 50 years with nonarthritic FAI suitable for surgical treatment were recruited for the trial at 10 clinical centers in Canada, Finland, and Denmark between October 2012 and November 2017, of whom 214 were included in the final analysis. In the osteochondroplasty group, cam- and/or pincer-type lesions were resected using fluoroscopic guidance. In the lavage group, the joint was washed out with 3 L of normal saline. Surgeons were instructed to repair the labrum in both groups if it was mechanically unstable once probed, showing visible displacement or chondrolabral separation. The primary outcome was patient-reported pain (using the 100-point visual analog scale [VAS]) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included hip function (Hip Outcome Score [HOS] and International Hip Outcome Tool), physical and mental health (12-Item Short Form Health Survey), and health utility (EuroQol–5 Dimensions) at 12 months as well as any reoperations and other hip-related adverse events at 24 months. Results: At 12 months, there was no difference in pain (VAS) between the groups (mean difference [MD], 0.11 [95% CI, –7.22 to 7.45]; P = .98). Also, 88.3% (189/214) of participants had a labral tear, of which 60.3% were repaired. For the secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between treatment groups, with the exception of the HOS activities of daily living domain in which lavage showed significant improvement compared with osteochondroplasty (MD, –5.03 [95% CI, −10.40 to −0.03]; P = .049). By 24 months, there were significantly fewer reoperations reported in the osteochondroplasty group (8/105) than the lavage group (19/104) (odds ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.15-0.89]; P = .026). The primary reasons for a reoperation included hip pain (15/27; 55.6%) and a reinjury of the labrum (11/27; 40.7%). Conclusion: Both the osteochondroplasty and the lavage groups with or without labral repair for FAI had significantly improved pain or function significantly at 1 year. By 2 years, the reoperation rate was significantly lower in the osteochondroplasty group. Registration: NCT01623843 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier)


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document