16 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Catheter ablation vs. antiarrhythmic drug therapy in patients with symptomatic atrioventricular nodal re-entrant tachycardia: a randomized, controlled trial.
Aims: To conduct a randomized trial in order to guide the optimum therapy of symptomatic atrioventricular nodal re-entrant tachycardia (AVNRT). Methods and Results: Patients with at least one symptomatic episode of tachycardia per month and an electrophysiologic diagnosis of AVNRT were randomly assigned to catheter ablation or chronic antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy with bisoprolol (5 mg od) and/or diltiazem (120-300 mg od). All patients were properly educated to treat subsequent tachycardia episodes with autonomic manoeuvres or a 'pill in the pocket' approach. The primary endpoint of the study was hospital admission for persistent tachycardia cardioversion, during a follow-up period of 5 years. Sixty-one patients were included in the study. In the ablation group, 1 patient was lost to follow-up, and 29 were free of arrhythmia or conduction disturbances at a 5-year follow-up. In the AAD group, three patients were lost to follow-up. Of the remainder, 10 patients (35.7%) continued with initial therapy, 11 patients (39.2%) remained on diltiazem alone, and 7 patients (25%) interrupted their therapy within the first 3 months following randomization, and subsequently developed an episode requiring cardioversion. During a follow-up of 5 years, 21 patients in the AAD group required hospital admission for cardioversion. Survival free from the study endpoint was significantly higher in the ablation group compared with the AAD group (log-rank test, P < 0.001). Conclusions: Catheter ablation is the therapy of choice for symptomatic AVNRT. Antiarrhythmic drug therapy is ineffective and not well tolerated
How achievable are COVID-19 clinical trial recruitment targets? A UK observational cohort study and trials registry analysis
OBJECTIVES: To analyse enrolment to interventional trials during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England and describe the barriers to successful recruitment in the circumstance of a further wave or future pandemics. DESIGN: We analysed registered interventional COVID-19 trial data and concurrently did a prospective observational study of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who were being assessed for eligibility to one of the RECOVERY, C19-ACS or SIMPLE trials. SETTING: Interventional COVID-19 trial data were analysed from the clinicaltrials.gov and International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number databases on 12 July 2020. The patient cohort was taken from five centres in a respiratory National Institute for Health Research network. Population and modelling data were taken from published reports from the UK government and Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit. PARTICIPANTS: 2082 consecutive admitted patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from 27 March 2020 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportions enrolled, and reasons for exclusion from the aforementioned trials. Comparisons of trial recruitment targets with estimated feasible recruitment numbers. RESULTS: Analysis of trial registration data for COVID-19 treatment studies enrolling in England showed that by 12 July 2020, 29 142 participants were needed. In the observational study, 430 (20.7%) proceeded to randomisation. 82 (3.9%) declined participation, 699 (33.6%) were excluded on clinical grounds, 363 (17.4%) were medically fit for discharge and 153 (7.3%) were receiving palliative care. With 111 037 people hospitalised with COVID-19 in England by 12 July 2020, we determine that 22 985 people were potentially suitable for trial enrolment. We estimate a UK hospitalisation rate of 2.38%, and that another 1.25 million infections would be required to meet recruitment targets of ongoing trials. CONCLUSIONS: Feasible recruitment rates, study design and proliferation of trials can limit the number, and size, that will successfully complete recruitment. We consider that fewer, more appropriately designed trials, prioritising cooperation between centres would maximise productivity in a further wave