Explore the vast range of titles available.

In a trial of percutaneous coronary intervention or conservative treatment in patients undergoing TAVI, PCI was associated with a lower risk of a composite of death, MI, or urgent revascularization at a median of 2 years.

Whether a conservative strategy of medical therapy alone or a strategy of medical therapy plus invasive treatment is more beneficial in older adults with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) remains unclear. We conducted a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial involving patients 75 years of age or older with NSTEMI at 48 sites in the United Kingdom. The patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a conservative strategy of the best available medical therapy or an invasive strategy of coronary angiography and revascularization plus the best available medical therapy. Patients who were frail or had a high burden of coexisting conditions were eligible. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes (cardiovascular death) or nonfatal myocardial infarction assessed in a time-to-event analysis. A total of 1518 patients underwent randomization; 753 patients were assigned to the invasive-strategy group and 765 to the conservative-strategy group. The mean age of the patients was 82 years, 45% were women, and 32% were frail. A primary-outcome event occurred in 193 patients (25.6%) in the invasive-strategy group and 201 patients (26.3%) in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.14; P = 0.53) over a median follow-up of 4.1 years. Cardiovascular death occurred in 15.8% of the patients in the invasive-strategy group and 14.2% of the patients in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.44). Nonfatal myocardial infarction occurred in 11.7% in the invasive-strategy group and 15.0% in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.99). Procedural complications occurred in less than 1% of the patients. In older adults with NSTEMI, an invasive strategy did not result in a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction (the composite primary outcome) than a conservative strategy over a median follow-up of 4.1 years. (Funded by the British Heart Foundation; BHF SENIOR-RITA ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN11343602.).

PurposeSepsis is a common reason for intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality in ICU patients. Despite increasing interest in treatment strategies limiting oxygen exposure in ICU patients, no trials have compared conservative vs. usual oxygen in patients with sepsis.MethodsWe undertook a post hoc analysis of the 251 patients with sepsis enrolled in a trial that compared conservative oxygen therapy with usual oxygen therapy in 1000 mechanically ventilated ICU patients. The primary end point for the current analysis was 90-day mortality. Key secondary outcomes were cause-specific mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, ventilator-free days, vasopressor-free days, and the proportion of patients receiving renal replacement therapy in the ICU.ResultsPatients with sepsis allocated to conservative oxygen therapy spent less time in the ICU with an SpO2 ≥ 97% (23.5 h [interquartile range (IQR) 8–70] vs. 47 h [IQR 11–93], absolute difference, 23 h; 95% CI 8–38), and more time receiving an FiO2 of 0.21 than patients allocated to usual oxygen therapy (20.5 h [IQR 1–79] vs. 0 h [IQR 0–10], absolute difference, 20 h; 95% CI 14–26). At 90-days, 47 of 130 patients (36.2%) assigned to conservative oxygen and 35 of 120 patients (29.2%) assigned to usual oxygen had died (absolute difference, 7 percentage points; 95% CI − 4.6 to 18.6% points; P = 0.24; interaction P = 0.35 for sepsis vs. non-sepsis). There were no statistically significant differences between groups for secondary outcomes but point estimates of treatment effects consistently favored usual oxygen therapy.ConclusionsPoint estimates for the treatment effect of conservative oxygen therapy on 90-day mortality raise the possibility of clinically important harm with this intervention in patients with sepsis; however, our post hoc analysis was not powered to detect the effects suggested and our data do not exclude clinically important benefit or harm from conservative oxygen therapy in this patient group.Clinical Trials RegistryICU-ROX Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number ACTRN12615000957594.

It remains unclear whether urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with biliary sphincterotomy improves the outcome of patients with gallstone pancreatitis without concomitant cholangitis. We did a randomised trial to compare urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy versus conservative treatment in patients with predicted severe acute gallstone pancreatitis. In this multicentre, parallel-group, assessor-masked, randomised controlled superiority trial, patients with predicted severe (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score ≥8, Imrie score ≥3, or C-reactive protein concentration >150 mg/L) gallstone pancreatitis without cholangitis were assessed for eligibility in 26 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a web-based randomisation module with randomly varying block sizes to urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy (within 24 h after hospital presentation) or conservative treatment. The primary endpoint was a composite of mortality or major complications (new-onset persistent organ failure, cholangitis, bacteraemia, pneumonia, pancreatic necrosis, or pancreatic insufficiency) within 6 months of randomisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN97372133. Between Feb 28, 2013, and March 1, 2017, 232 patients were randomly assigned to urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy (n=118) or conservative treatment (n=114). One patient from each group was excluded from the final analysis because of cholangitis (urgent ERCP group) and chronic pancreatitis (conservative treatment group) at admission. The primary endpoint occurred in 45 (38%) of 117 patients in the urgent ERCP group and in 50 (44%) of 113 patients in the conservative treatment group (risk ratio [RR] 0·87, 95% CI 0·64–1·18; p=0·37). No relevant differences in the individual components of the primary endpoint were recorded between groups, apart from the occurrence of cholangitis (two [2%] of 117 in the urgent ERCP group vs 11 [10%] of 113 in the conservative treatment group; RR 0·18, 95% CI 0·04–0·78; p=0·010). Adverse events were reported in 87 (74%) of 118 patients in the urgent ERCP group versus 91 (80%) of 114 patients in the conservative treatment group. In patients with predicted severe gallstone pancreatitis but without cholangitis, urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy did not reduce the composite endpoint of major complications or mortality, compared with conservative treatment. Our findings support a conservative strategy in patients with predicted severe acute gallstone pancreatitis with an ERCP indicated only in patients with cholangitis or persistent cholestasis. The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, Fonds NutsOhra, and the Dutch Patient Organization for Pancreatic Diseases.

In a single-center, randomized trial involving 128 patients with sciatica lasting 4 to 12 months and lumbar disk herniation, diskectomy was superior to conservative care in reducing leg-pain intensity at 6 months after enrollment. Among the patients assigned to conservative care, 34% crossed over to undergo surgery.

Objective To study whether stopping elastic compression stockings (ECS) after 12 months is non-inferior to continuing them for 24 months after proximal deep venous thrombosis.Design Multicentre single blind non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.Setting Outpatient clinics in eight teaching hospitals in the Netherlands, including one university medical centre.Participants Patients compliant with compression therapy for 12 months after symptomatic, ultrasound proven proximal deep venous thrombosis of the leg.Interventions Continuation or cessation of ECS 12 months after deep venous thrombosis.Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the incidence of post-thrombotic syndrome 24 months after diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis, as assessed by the standardised Villalta scale in an intention to treat analysis. The predefined non-inferiority margin was 10%. The main secondary outcome was quality of life (VEINES-QOL/Sym).Results 518 patients compliant with ECS and free of post-thrombotic syndrome were randomised one year after diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis to stop or continue ECS therapy for another year. In the stop-ECS group, 51 of 256 patients developed post-thrombotic syndrome, with an incidence of 19.9% (95% confidence interval 16% to 24%). In the continue-ECS group, 34 of 262 patients developed post-thrombotic syndrome (incidence 13.0%, 9.9% to 17%), of whom 85% used ECS six or seven days a week during the study period, for an absolute difference of 6.9% (95% confidence interval upper limit 12.3%). Because the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval exceeds the predefined margin of 10%, non-inferiority was not reached. The number needed to treat to prevent one case of post-thrombotic syndrome by continuing ECS was 14 (95% confidence interval lower limit 8). Quality of life did not differ between the two groups.Conclusion Stopping ECS after one year in compliant patients with proximal deep venous thrombosis seemed not to be non-inferior to continuing ECS therapy for two years in this non-inferiority trial.Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register NTR1442.

AbstractObjectiveTo assess whether a clinically relevant difference exists in patients’ perceptions of symptoms, knee function, and ability to participate in sports over a period of two years after rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) between two commonly used treatment regimens.DesignOpen labelled, multicentre, parallel randomised controlled trial (COMPARE).SettingSix hospitals in the Netherlands, between May 2011 and April 2016.ParticipantsPatients aged 18 to 65 with an acute rupture of the ACL, recruited from six hospitals. Patients were evaluated at three, six, nine, 12, and 24 months.Interventions85 patients were randomised to early ACL reconstruction and 82 to rehabilitation followed by optional delayed ACL reconstruction after a three month period (primary non-operative treatment).Main outcomesPatients’ perceptions of symptoms, knee function, and ability to participate in sporting activities were assessed with the International Knee Documentation Committee score (optimum score 100) at each time point over 24 months.ResultsBetween May 2011 and April 2016, 167 patients were enrolled in the study and randomised to one of two treatments (mean age 31.3; 67 (40.%) women), and 163 (98%) completed the trial. In the rehabilitation and optional delayed ACL reconstruction group, 41 (50%) patients underwent reconstruction during follow-up. After 24 months, the early ACL reconstruction group had a significantly better (P=0.026) but not clinically relevant International Knee Documentation Committee score (84.7 v 79.4 (difference between groups 5.3, 95% confidence interval 0.6 to 9.9). After three months of follow-up, the International Knee Documentation Committee score was significantly better (P=0.002) for the rehabilitation and optional delayed ACL reconstruction group (difference between groups −9.3, −14.6 to −4.0). After nine months of follow-up, the difference in the International Knee Documentation Committee score changed in favour of the early ACL reconstruction group. After 12 months, differences between the groups were smaller. In the early ACL reconstruction group, four re-ruptures and three ruptures of the contralateral ACL occurred during follow-up versus two re-ruptures and one rupture of the contralateral ACL in the rehabilitation and optional delayed ACL reconstruction group.ConclusionsIn patients with acute rupture of the ACL, those who underwent early surgical reconstruction, compared with rehabilitation followed by elective surgical reconstruction, had improved perceptions of symptoms, knee function, and ability to participate in sports at the two year follow-up. This finding was significant (P=0.026) but the clinical importance is unclear. Interpretation of the results of the study should consider that 50% of the patients randomised to the rehabilitation group did not need surgical reconstruction.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register NL 2618.

Studies show that conservative management in acute uncomplicated appendicitis (AUA) is an alternative to surgery. This study aims to determine factors affecting parental preference in management of AUA and their decision for research participation. We conducted surveys on parents whose children were admitted with suspicion of appendicitis but later confirmed not to have appendicitis. Information on appendicectomy versus conservative treatment with antibiotics was provided using a fixed script and standard information leaflet. Questionnaires covered factors influencing decisions, opinions regarding research, treatment preference and demographic data. We excluded parents not fluent in English. Of 113 respondents, 71(62.8%) chose antibiotics, 39(34.5%) chose appendicectomy, and 3(2.7%) had no preference. Reasons given for choosing antibiotics were fear of surgical risks and preferring less invasive treatment. Those choosing appendicectomy expressed preference for definitive treatment and fear of recurrence. Majority were against randomisation (n = 89, 78.8%) and blinding (n = 90, 79.7%). Over half found difficulty involving their child in research (n = 65, 57.5%). Most thought that research is important (66.4%) and beneficial to others (59.3%). Parents who perceived their child as healthy found research riskier (p = 0.039). Educated parents were more likely to find research beneficial to others (p = 0.012) but less accepting of randomisation (p = 0.001).Conclusion: More parents appear to prefer conservative treatment for acute uncomplicated appendicitis. Researchers must consider parental concerns regarding randomisation and blinding.What is Known:• Conservative management of acute uncomplicated appendicitis in paediatric patients is safe and effective, sparing the child the need for an operation; however, neither conservative nor surgical management is proven to be superior.• Randomised controlled trials provide the highest level of evidence, but it is challenging to recruit paediatric patients as participants in such clinical trials.What is New:• More parents prefer conservative management of uncomplicated appendicitis over surgical management for their children due to fear of surgical risks and complications• Randomisation in trial design is significantly associated with a parent’s decision to reject their child’s participation in a clinical trial.

Background Currently, the routine treatment for acute appendicitis in the United Kingdom is an appendicectomy. However, there is increasing scientific interest and research into non-operative treatment of appendicitis in adults and children. While a number of studies have investigated non-operative treatment of appendicitis in adults, this research cannot be applied to the paediatric population. Ultimately, we aim to perform a UK-based multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the clinical and cost effectiveness of non-operative treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children, as compared with appendicectomy. First, we will undertake a feasibility study to assess the feasibility of performing such a trial. Methods/design The study involves a feasibility RCT with a nested qualitative research to optimise recruitment as well as a health economic substudy. Children (aged 4–15 years inclusive) diagnosed with acute uncomplicated appendicitis that would normally be treated with an appendicectomy are eligible for the RCT. Exclusion criteria include clinical/radiological suspicion of perforated appendicitis, appendix mass or previous non-operative treatment of appendicitis. Participants will be randomised into one of two arms. Participants in the intervention arm are treated with antibiotics and regular clinical assessment to ensure clinical improvement. Participants in the control arm will receive appendicectomy. Randomisation will be minimised by age, sex, duration of symptoms and centre. Children and families who are approached for the RCT will be invited to participate in the embedded qualitative substudy, which includes recording of recruitment consultants and subsequent interviews with participants and non-participants and their families and recruiters. Analyses of these will inform interventions to optimise recruitment. The main study outcomes include recruitment rate (primary outcome), identification of strategies to optimise recruitment, performance of trial treatment pathways, clinical outcomes and safety of non-operative treatment. We have involved children, young people and parents in study design and delivery. Discussion In this study we will explore the feasibility of performing a full efficacy RCT comparing non-operative treatment with appendicectomy in children with acute uncomplicated appendicitis. Factors determining success of the present study include recruitment rate, safety of non-operative treatment and adequate interest in the future RCT. Ultimately this feasibility study will form the foundation of the main RCT and reinforce its design. Trial registration ISRCTN15830435 . Registered on 8 February 2017.

IntroductionSevere pectus excavatum (PE) may impair cardiopulmonary and physical function. The effectiveness of surgical treatment to correct PE and restore physical function is widely debated due to a lack of high-quality comparative evidence. The RESTORE trial aims to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of corrective surgery for severe PE compared with conservative management for the first time in a randomised controlled trial (RCT).Methods and analysisRESTORE is a pragmatic, multicentre, RCT with an embedded observational cohort. 200 participants aged ≥12 years with severe PE will be recruited at around 12 National Health Service cardiothoracic surgical centres in England. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to receive either surgery within 3 months of randomisation (intervention arm) or no surgery until after the primary outcome measurement at 1 year (comparator arm). The primary outcome is change in physical functioning from baseline to 1 year as measured by the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36v2) physical function score. The primary economic outcome is cost-effectiveness. The key secondary outcome is change in % predicted VO2peak at 1 year measured by cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET). Outcomes will be assessed at 1 year post-randomisation in the comparator arm and 1 year post-surgery in the intervention arm. The primary analyses will be undertaken on an intention-to-treat population using a linear mixed-effects model, adjusted for stratification variables via a binary covariate. Other secondary outcomes will include change from baseline of cardiopulmonary function (CPET and spirometry), health-related quality of life using the EuroQol 5 Dimension 5 Level (EQ-5D-5L) and SF-36v2 questionnaires, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and disease specific symptoms (Phoenix Comprehensive Assessment for Pectus Excavatum Symptoms and Pectus Excavatum Evaluation Questionnaire). Adverse events, complications from surgery and operative technical success (Haller and Compression Indices from preoperative and postoperative CT scans) will also be assessed. Health economic analysis will estimate the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year at 1 year.Ethics and disseminationThe trial was approved by East of Scotland Research and Ethics Service (24/ES/0034). Participants who are ≥16 years of age will be required to provide written informed consent. For participants <16 years of age who are not judged to be Gillick competent, written assent and written informed consent from a parent/guardian will be required. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and shared with participants, clinicians and commissioners.Trial registration numberISRCTN11359779.