Suppr超能文献

ACCESS HD试点项目:一项针对开始进行血液透析的老年患者比较导管与动静脉内瘘的随机可行性试验。

ACCESS HD pilot: A randomised feasibility trial Comparing Catheters with fistulas in Elderly patientS Starting haemodialysis.

作者信息

Quinn Robert, Ravani Pietro

机构信息

Cumming School of Medicine/Libin Cardiovascular Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Cumming School of Medicine/O'Brien Institute of Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 24;6(11):e013081. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013081.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The selection of the type of vascular access for haemodialysis is an important intervention question. However, only observational studies are available to inform decision-making in this area, and they are at high risk of selection bias. While a clinical trial comparing the effects of the 2 most frequently chosen strategies for haemodialysis access (fistulas and catheters) on patient important and 'hard' clinical end points is needed, the feasibility of such a trial is uncertain.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This open-label pilot randomised controlled trial will test the feasibility and safety of randomising elderly people (≥65 years) who start haemodialysis with a central venous catheter (the most common initial type of haemodialysis access), and are eligible to receive a fistula, to a catheter-based strategy (comparator) or to a fistula-based strategy (intervention). We will enrol 100 patients at 10 centres across Canada. Participants assigned to the catheter-strategy arm will continue to use catheters; participants assigned to the fistula-strategy arm will receive a surgical attempt at fistula creation. The inclusion criteria are designed to minimise the risk of protocol violation and attrition. The primary outcome is feasibility, which we will assess by measuring: (1) the proportion of participants deemed eligible for the trial who consent to randomisation; and (2) the proportion of participants randomised to the intervention who receive the fistula surgery within 90 days of randomisation. Secondary outcomes will include safety outcomes, the reasons people and healthcare providers may not accept randomisation, and the reasons sites may not adhere to the trial protocol.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board at the University of Calgary approved the study protocol. We will submit the results of this feasibility study in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02675569, Pre-results.

摘要

引言

血液透析血管通路类型的选择是一个重要的干预问题。然而,目前仅有观察性研究可用于为该领域的决策提供信息,且这些研究存在较高的选择偏倚风险。虽然需要进行一项比较血液透析通路最常选用的两种策略(动静脉内瘘和导管)对患者重要且“硬性”临床终点影响的临床试验,但此类试验的可行性尚不确定。

方法与分析

这项开放标签的试点随机对照试验将测试把开始血液透析时使用中心静脉导管(血液透析通路最常见的初始类型)且符合接受动静脉内瘘条件的老年人(≥65岁)随机分配至基于导管的策略(对照)或基于动静脉内瘘的策略(干预)的可行性和安全性。我们将在加拿大的10个中心招募100名患者。分配至导管策略组的参与者将继续使用导管;分配至动静脉内瘘策略组的参与者将接受创建动静脉内瘘的手术尝试。纳入标准旨在将违反方案和失访的风险降至最低。主要结局是可行性,我们将通过测量以下指标进行评估:(1)被认为符合试验条件并同意随机分组的参与者比例;(2)随机分配至干预组且在随机分组后90天内接受动静脉内瘘手术的参与者比例。次要结局将包括安全性结局、患者和医疗服务提供者可能不接受随机分组的原因,以及研究地点可能不遵守试验方案的原因。

伦理与传播

卡尔加里大学联合健康研究伦理委员会批准了研究方案。我们将在同行评审期刊上提交这项可行性研究的结果。

试验注册号

NCT02675569,预结果。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9205/5168520/aae373f60ff1/bmjopen2016013081f01.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验