Comparison of total parathyroidectomy without autotransplantation and without thymectomy versus total parathyroidectomy with autotransplantation and with thymectomy for secondary hyperparathyroidism: TOPAR PILOT-Trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Secondary hyperparathyroidism (sHPT) is common in patients with chronic renal failure. Despite the initiation of new therapeutic agents, several patients will require parathyroidectomy (PTX). Total PTX with autotransplantation of parathyroid tissue (TPTX+AT) and subtotal parathyroidectomy (SPTX) are currently considered as standard surgical procedures in the treatment of sHPT. Recurrencerates after TPTX+AT or SPTX are between 10% and 12% (median follow up: 36 months).</p> <p>Recent retrospective studies demonstrated a lower rate of recurrent sHPT of 0–4% after PTX without autotransplantation and thymectomy (TPTX) with no higher morbidity when compared to the standard procedures. The observed superiority of TPTX is flawed due to different definitions of outcomes, varying follow up periods and different surgical treatment strategies (with and without thymectomy).</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>Patients with sHPT (intact parathyroid hormone > 10 times above the upper limit of normal) on long term dialysis (>12 months) will be randomized either to TPTX or TPTX+AT and followed for 36 months. Outcome parameters are recurrence rates of sHPT, frequencies of reoperations due to refractory hypoparathyroidism or recurrent/persistent hyperparathyroidism, postoperative morbidity and mortality and quality of life. 50 patients per group will be randomized in order to obtain relevant frequencies of outcome parameters that will form the basis for a large scale confirmatory multicentred randomized controlled trial.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>sHPT is a disease with a high incidence in patients with chronic renal failure. Even a small difference in outcomes will be of clinical relevance. To assess sufficient data about the rate of recurrent sHPT after both methods, a multicentred, randomized controlled trial (MRCT) under standardized conditions is mandatory.</p> <p>Due to the existing uncertainties the calculated number of patients necessary in each treatment arm (n > 4000) makes it impossible to perform this study as a confirmatory trial. Therefore estimates of different outcomes are performed using a pilot MRCT comparing 50 versus 50 randomized patients in order to establish a hypothesis that can be tested thereafter.</p> <p>If TPTX proves to have a lower rate of recurrent sHPT, no relevant disadvantages and no higher morbidity than TPTX+AT, current surgical practice may be changed.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registration (ISRCTN86202793)</p

Insight from an Italian Delphi Consensus on EVAR feasibility outside the instruction for use: the SAFE EVAR Study

BACKGROUND: The SAfety and FEasibility of standard EVAR outside the instruction for use (SAFE-EVAR) Study was designed to define the attitude of Italian vascular surgeons towards the use of standard endovascular repair (EVAR) for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) outside the instruction for use (IFU) through a Delphi consensus endorsed by the Italian Society of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (Societa Italiana di Chirurgia Vascolare ed Endovascolare - SICVE). METHODS: A questionnaire consisting of 26 statements was developed, validated by an 18 -member Advisory Board, and then sent to 600 Italian vascular surgeons. The Delphi process was structured in three subsequent rounds which took place between April and June 2023. In the first two rounds, respondents could indicate one of the following five degrees of agreement: 1) strongly agree; 2) partially agree; 3) neither agree nor disagree; 4) partially disagree; 5) strongly disagree; while in the third round only three different choices were proposed: 1) agree; 2) neither agree nor disagree; 3) disagree. We considered the consensus reached when &gt;70% of respondents agreed on one of the options. After the conclusion of each round, a report describing the percentage distribution of the answers was sent to all the participants. RESULTS: Two -hundred -forty-four (40.6%) Italian Vascular Surgeons agreed to participate the first round of the Delphi Consensus; the second and the third rounds of the Delphi collected 230 responders (94.3% of the first -round responders). Four statements (15.4%) reached a consensus in the first rounds. Among the 22 remaining statements, one more consensus (3.8%) was achieved in the second round. Finally, seven more statements (26.9%) reached a consensus in the simplified last round. Globally, a consensus was reached for almost half of the proposed statements (46.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The relatively low consensus rate obtained in this Delphi seems to confirm the discrepancy between Guideline recommendations and daily clinical practice. The data collected could represent the source for a possible guidelines' revision and the proposal of specific Good Practice Points in all those aspects with only little evidence available