Dataset Information

Low-volume versus high-volume initiated trans-anal irrigation therapy in adults with chronic constipation: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Constipation is common in adults and up to 20% of the population report this symptom. Chronic constipation (CC), usually defined as more than 6 months of symptoms, is less common but results in 0.5 million UK GP consultations per annum. The effect of symptoms on measured quality of life (QOL) is significant, and CC consumes significant health care resources. In the UK, it is estimated that 10% of district nursing time is spent on constipation. Trans-anal irrigation therapy has become a widely used treatment despite a lack of robust efficacy data to support its use. The long-term outcome of treatment is also unclear. A randomised comparison of two different methods of irrigation (high- and low-volume) will provide valuable evidence of superiority of one system over the other, as well as providing efficacy data for the treatment as a whole.

Methods

Participants will be recruited based on predetermined eligibility criteria. Following informed consent, they will be randomised to either high-volume (HV) or low-volume (LV) irrigation and undergo standardised radiological and physiological investigations. Following training, they will commence home irrigation with the allocated device. Data will be collected at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months according to a standardised outcomes framework. The primary outcome is PAC-QOL, measured at 3 months. The study is powered to detect a 10% difference in outcome between systems at 3 months; this means that 300 patients will need to be recruited.

Discussion

This study will be the first randomised comparison of two different methods of trans-anal irrigation. It will also be the largest prospective study of CC patients treated with irrigation. It will provide evidence for the effectiveness of irrigation in the treatment of CC, as well as the comparative effectiveness of the two methods. This will enable more cost-effective and evidence-based use of irrigation. Also, the results will be combined with the other studies in the CapaCiTY programme to generate an evidence-based treatment algorithm for CC in adults.

Trial registration

ISRCTN, identifier: ISRCTN11093872 . Registered on 11 November 2015. Trial not retrospectively registered. Protocol version 3 (22 January 2016).

SUBMITTER: Emmett C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5374566 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Low-volume versus high-volume initiated trans-anal irrigation therapy in adults with chronic constipation: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Emmett Christopher C Close Helen H Mason James J Taheri Shiva S Stevens Natasha N Eldridge Sandra S Norton Christine C Knowles Charles C Yiannakou Yan Y

Trials 20170331 1

<h4>Background</h4>Constipation is common in adults and up to 20% of the population report this symptom. Chronic constipation (CC), usually defined as more than 6 months of symptoms, is less common but results in 0.5 million UK GP consultations per annum. The effect of symptoms on measured quality of life (QOL) is significant, and CC consumes significant health care resources. In the UK, it is estimated that 10% of district nursing time is spent on constipation. Trans-anal irrigation therapy has ...[more]

PMID: 28359279

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionIdentifying the optimal treatment for anal fistula has been challenging. Since first reported in 2007, the ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT) procedure has reported healing rates between 40% and 95% and is being increasingly adopted. The BioLIFT is an augmentation of the LIFT with an intersphincteric bioprosthetic mesh and has reported healing rates between 69% and 94%. Despite increased costs and potential complications associated with mesh, the evidence comparing healing rates between BioLIFT and LIFT is unknown. This study details the protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of BioLIFT and LIFT to compare outcomes associated with each procedure.Methods and analysisMEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database will be searched from inception using a search strategy designed by an information specialist. Randomised controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, consecutive series, cross-sectional studies and case series with more than five patients will be included. Both comparative and single group studies will be included. The eligible population will be adult patients undergoing BioLIFT or LIFT for trans-sphincteric anal fistula. The primary outcome will be primary healing rate. Secondary outcomes will capture secondary healing rate and complications. Abstract, full text and data extraction will be completed independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. Study risk of bias will be assessed using Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions and the Risk of Bias (RoB 2.0) tool. Quality of evidence for outcomes will be evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations criteria. A meta-analysis will be performed using a random-effects inverse variance model. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be explored in relation to complex fistula characteristics and patients who have undergone previous LIFT. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the I2 statistic.Ethics and disseminationThis review does not require research ethics board approval. This study will be completed in September 2022. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed international conferences and journals.Prospero registration numberCRD42020127996.

Project description:BackgroundConstipation affects up to 20% of adults. Chronic constipation (CC) affects 1-2% of adults. Patient dissatisfaction is high; nearly 80% feel that laxative therapy is unsatisfactory and symptoms have significant impact on quality of life. There is uncertainty about the value of specialist investigations and whether equipment-intensive therapies using biofeedback confer additional benefit when compared with specialist conservative advice.Methods/designA three-arm, parallel-group, multicentre randomised controlled trial.Objectivesto determine whether standardised specialist-led habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computerised biofeedback is more clinically effective than standardised specialist-led habit training alone; to determine whether outcomes are improved by stratification based on prior investigation of anorectal and colonic pathophysiology. Primary outcome measure is response to treatment, defined as a 0.4-point (10% of scale) or greater reduction in Patient Assessment of Constipation-Quality of Life (PAC-QOL) score 6 months after the end of treatment. Other outcomes up to 12 months include symptoms, quality of life, health economics, psychological health and qualitative experience.Hypotheses(1) habit training (HT) with computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback (HTBF) results in an average reduction in PAC-QOL score of 0.4 points at 6 months compared to HT alone in unselected adults with CC, (2) stratification to either HT or HTBF informed by pathophysiological investigation (INVEST) results in an average 0.4-point reduction in PAC-QOL score at 6 months compared with treatment not directed by investigations (No-INVEST). Inclusion: chronic constipation in adults (aged 18-70 years) defined by self-reported symptom duration of more than 6 months; failure of previous laxatives or prokinetics and diet and lifestyle modifications. Consenting participants (n = 394) will be randomised to one of three arms in an allocation ratio of 3:3:2: [1] habit training, [2] habit training and biofeedback or [3] investigation-led allocation to one of these arms. Analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis.DiscussionThis trial has the potential to answer some of the major outstanding questions in the management of chronic constipation, including whether costly invasive tests are warranted and whether computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback confers additional benefit to well-managed specialist advice alone.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN11791740. Registered on 16 July 2015.

Project description:BackgroundThe traditional system of routine outpatient follow-up of chronic disease in secondary care may involve a waste of resources if patients are well. The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) could support more flexible, cost-saving follow-up activities. AmbuFlex is a PRO system used in outpatient follow-up in the Central Denmark Region. PRO questionnaires are sent to patients at fixed intervals. The clinicians use the PRO data to decide whether a patient needs a visit or not (standard telePRO). PRO may make patients become more involved in their own care pathway, which may improve their self-management. Better self-management may also be achieved by letting patients initiate contact. The aim of this study is to obtain data on the effects of patient-initiated follow-up (open access telePRO) on resource utilisation, quality of care, and the patient perspective.MethodsThe study is a pragmatic, randomised, controlled trial in outpatients with epilepsy. Participants are randomly assigned to one of two follow-up activities: a) standard telePRO or b) open access telePRO. Inclusion criteria are age ≥ 15 years and previous referral to standard telePRO follow-up at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. Furthermore, patients must have answered the last questionnaire via the Internet. The number of contacts will be used as the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures include well-being (WHO-5 Well-Being Index), general health, number of seizures, treatment side effects, mortality, health literacy (Health Literacy Questionnaire), self-efficacy (General Self-Efficacy scale), patient activation, confidence, safety, and satisfaction. In addition, the patient perspective will be explored by qualitative methods. Data will be collected at baseline and 18 month after randomisation. Inclusion of patients in the study started in January 2016. Statistical analysis will be performed on an intention-to-treat and per-protocol basis. For qualitative data, the interpretive description strategy will be used.DiscussionThe benefits and possible drawbacks of the PRO-based open access approach will be evaluated. The present study will provide important knowledge to guide future telePRO interventions in relation to effect on resource utilisation, quality of care, and the patient perspective.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02673580 (Registration date January 28, 2016).

Project description:IntroductionChronic subdural haematomas (CSDHs) are one of the most common neurosurgical conditions. The goal of surgery is to alleviate symptoms and minimise the risk of symptomatic recurrences. In the past, reoperation rates as high as 20%-30% were described for CSDH recurrences. However, following the introduction of subdural drainage, reoperation rates dropped to approximately 10%. The standard surgical technique includes burr-hole craniostomy, followed by intraoperative irrigation and placement of subdural drainage. Yet, the role of intraoperative irrigation has not been established. If there is no difference in recurrence rates between intraoperative irrigation and no irrigation, CSDH surgery could be carried out faster and more safely by omitting the step of irrigation. The aim of this multicentre randomised controlled trial is to study whether no intraoperative irrigation and subdural drainage results in non-inferior outcome compared with intraoperative irrigation and subdural drainage following burr-hole craniostomy of CSDH.Methods and analysisThis is a prospective, randomised, controlled, parallel group, non-inferiority multicentre trial comparing single burr-hole evacuation of CSDH with intraoperative irrigation and evacuation of CSDH without irrigation. In both groups, a passive subdural drain is used for 48 hours as a standard of treatment. The primary outcome is symptomatic CSDH recurrence requiring reoperation within 6 months. The predefined non-inferiority margin for the primary outcome is 7.5%. To achieve a 2.5% level of significance and 80% power, we will randomise 270 patients per group. Secondary outcomes include modified Rankin Scale, rate of mortality, duration of operation, length of hospital stay, adverse events and change in volume of CSDH.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by the institutional review board of the Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital District (HUS/3035/2019 §238) and duly registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. We will disseminate the findings of this study through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.Trial registration numberNCT04203550.

Project description:IntroductionObstetric anal sphincter injury (OASIS) occurs in 5%-7% of normal deliveries and increases with vacuum extraction (VE) to 12%-14% in nulliparous women in Sweden. Lateral/mediolateral episiotomy may reduce the prevalence of OASIS at VE in nulliparous women. The current use of episiotomy is restrictive. The protective effect and consequences are uncertain. This trial will investigate if lateral episiotomy can reduce the prevalence of OASIS and assess short-term and long-term effects.Methods and analysisThis is a multicentre randomised controlled trial of lateral episiotomy versus no episiotomy in nulliparous women with a singleton, live fetus, after gestational week 34+0 with indication for VE. A lateral episiotomy of 4 cm is cut at crowning, 1-3 cm from the midline, at a 60° angle. The primary outcome is OASIS by clinical diagnosis analysed according to intention to treat. To demonstrate a 50% reduction in OASIS prevalence (from 12.4% to 6.2%), 710 women will be randomised at a 1:1 ratio. Secondary outcomes are pain, blood loss, other perineal injuries, perineal complications, Apgar score, cord pH and neonatal complications. Web-based questionnaires at baseline, 2 months, 1 and 5 years will be used to assess pain, incontinence, prolapse, sexual function, quality of life and childbirth experience. A subset of women will receive follow-up by pelvic floor sonography and pelvic examination. Mode of delivery and recurrence of OASIS/episiotomy in subsequent pregnancies will be assessed at 5 and 10 years using register data.Ethics and disseminationThe trial is open for enrolment. The trial has received ethical approval from the Regional Ethical Review Board of Stockholm and full funding from the Swedish Research Council. Women are interested in participation. The predominant restrictive view on episiotomy may limit recruitment. Results are of global interest and will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at international congresses.Trial registration numberNCT02643108; Pre-results.

Dataset Information

Low-volume versus high-volume initiated trans-anal irrigation therapy in adults with chronic constipation: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Background

Methods

Discussion

Trial registration

Publications

Low-volume versus high-volume initiated trans-anal irrigation therapy in adults with chronic constipation: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets