Dataset Information

Shunting outcomes in communicating hydrocephalus: protocol for a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) remains the most widely used methods to treat communicating hydrocephalus. More recently, lumboperitoneal shunt (LPS) has been suggested as a reasonable option in some studies. However, there is lack of high-quality studies comparing these two techniques in order to certain the benefits and harms to use one of these two methods. The purpose of the current study is to determine the effectiveness and safety of the LPS versus the VPS in patients with communicating hydrocephalus.

Methods and analysis

All eligible patients aged 18-90 years with communicating hydrocephalus will be recruited and then randomly allocated into LPS or VPS group in a ratio of 1:1. All patients will be analysed before shunt insertion, at the time of discharge, 1 month, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months postoperatively. The primary outcome measure is the rate of shunt failure at a 2-year follow-up term. The secondary outcomes include Keifer's Hydrocephalus Scale, National Institute of Health Stroke Scale, Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended, Evans index, safety endpoints and cost-effectiveness of hospital stay.

Ethics and dissemination

The study will be performed in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki (2002) of the World Medical Association. The study was approved by Institutional Review Board of West China Hospital. All patients will be fully informed the potential benefits, potential risks and responsibilities, those who will sign the informed consents once they are included. Preliminary and final results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international congresses.

Trial registration number

ChiCTR2100043839.

SUBMITTER: Sun T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8395273 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAppendectomy is considered the gold standard treatment for acute appendicitis. Recently the need for surgery has been challenged in both adults and children. In children there is growing clinician, patient and parental interest in non-operative treatment of acute appendicitis with antibiotics as opposed to surgery. To date no multicentre randomised controlled trials that are appropriately powered to determine efficacy of non-operative treatment (antibiotics) for acute appendicitis in children compared with surgery (appendectomy) have been performed.MethodsMulticentre, international, randomised controlled trial with a non-inferiority design. Children (age 5-16 years) with a clinical and/or radiological diagnosis of acute uncomplicated appendicitis will be randomised (1:1 ratio) to receive either laparoscopic appendectomy or treatment with intravenous (minimum 12 hours) followed by oral antibiotics (total course 10 days). Allocation to groups will be stratified by gender, duration of symptoms (> or <48 hours) and centre. Children in both treatment groups will follow a standardised treatment pathway. Primary outcome is treatment failure defined as additional intervention related to appendicitis requiring general anaesthesia within 1 year of randomisation (including recurrent appendicitis) or negative appendectomy. Important secondary outcomes will be reported and a cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed. The primary outcome will be analysed on a non-inferiority basis using a 20% non-inferiority margin. Planned sample size is 978 children.DiscussionThe APPY trial will be the first multicentre randomised trial comparing non-operative treatment with appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children. The results of this trial have the potential to revolutionise the treatment of this common gastrointestinal emergency. The randomised design will limit the effect of bias on outcomes seen in other studies.Trial registration numberclinicaltrials.gov: NCT02687464. Registered on Jan 13th 2016.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Difficult airway management during tracheal intubation can lead to severe hypoxic sequelae. Routine intubation practice is to use a strict supine position, whereas a 25° head-up or reverse Trendelenburg position increases efficacy of preoxygenation, seems more comfortable for the anaesthetist and may also provide better intubation conditions in direct laryngoscopy. The 25° head-up position could be used for the whole population rather than only for obese patients, but there is no prospective randomised controlled trial with a robust design and large number of patients comparing strict supine against 25° intubation in operating room. The objective of the InSize25 study is to test the effect of these two patient positions on intubation conditions during laryngoscopy in scheduled surgery on non-obese patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:InSize25 is an investigator-initiated, multicentre, open-label, two-arm, randomised controlled trial. The InSize25 study will randomise 1000 adult patients scheduled for surgery under general anaesthesia requiring intubation with neuromuscular-blocking drugs, candidates for direct laryngoscopy. The primary outcome variable is the view obtained during the first laryngoscopy without any external manipulation assessed using percentage of glottic opening. Important secondary outcomes are: Cormack-Lehane classification, number of attempts at laryngoscopy and at tracheal intubation, use of ancillary equipment (eg, bougies, alternative laryngoscope blades, videolaryngoscope) and manoeuvres (eg, laryngeal manipulation), comfort score for the anaesthetist, episodes of postinduction hypotension or desaturation and mechanical complications of intubation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The trial received appropriate approval from the 'CPP Sud-Est II' ethical review board. Informed consent is required. If the 25° head-up position proves superior for tracheal intubation without more complications, it may become the routine-standard intubation position rather than only for use with obese patients. The final results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:Clinicaltrials.gov identifier (NCT03339141).

Project description:IntroductionIn women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) requiring pharmacotherapy, insulin was the established first-line treatment. More recently, oral glucose lowering drugs (OGLDs) have gained popularity as a patient-friendly, less expensive and safe alternative. Monotherapy with metformin or glibenclamide (glyburide) is incorporated in several international guidelines. In women who do not reach sufficient glucose control with OGLD monotherapy, usually insulin is added, either with or without continuation of OGLDs. No reliable data from clinical trials, however, are available on the effectiveness of a treatment strategy using all three agents, metformin, glibenclamide and insulin, in a stepwise approach, compared with insulin-only therapy for improving pregnancy outcomes. In this trial, we aim to assess the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and patient experience of a stepwise combined OGLD treatment protocol, compared with conventional insulin-based therapy for GDM.MethodsThe SUGAR-DIP trial is an open-label, multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Participants are women with GDM who do not reach target glycaemic control with modification of diet, between 16 and 34 weeks of gestation. Participants will be randomised to either treatment with OGLDs, starting with metformin and supplemented as needed with glibenclamide, or randomised to treatment with insulin. In women who do not reach target glycaemic control with combined metformin and glibenclamide, glibenclamide will be substituted with insulin, while continuing metformin. The primary outcome will be the incidence of large-for-gestational-age infants (birth weight >90th percentile). Secondary outcome measures are maternal diabetes-related endpoints, obstetric complications, neonatal complications and cost-effectiveness analysis. Outcomes will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Utrecht University Medical Centre. Approval by the boards of management for all participating hospitals will be obtained. Trial results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNTR6134; Pre-results.