7 research outputs found

    Protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing warfarin with no oral anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation on chronic dialysis: the Danish Warfarin-Dialysis (DANWARD) trial

    Get PDF
    INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation is highly prevalent in patients on chronic dialysis. It is unclear whether anticoagulant therapy for stroke prevention is beneficial in these patients. Vitamin K-antagonists (VKA) remain the predominant anticoagulant choice. Importantly, anticoagulation remains inconsistently used and a possible benefit remains untested in randomised clinical trials comparing oral anticoagulation with no treatment in patients on chronic dialysis. The Danish Warfarin-Dialysis (DANWARD) trial aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of VKAs in patients with atrial fibrillation on chronic dialysis. The hypothesis is that VKA treatment compared with no treatment is associated with stroke risk reduction and overall benefit.METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The DANWARD trial is an investigator-initiated trial at 13 Danish dialysis centres. In an open-label randomised clinical trial study design, a total of 718 patients with atrial fibrillation on chronic dialysis will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either standard dose VKA targeting an international normalised ratio of 2.0-3.0 or no oral anticoagulation. Principal analyses will compare the risk of a primary efficacy endpoint, stroke or transient ischaemic attack and a primary safety endpoint, major bleeding, in patients allocated to VKA treatment and no treatment, respectively. The first patient was randomised in October 2019. Patients will be followed until 1 year after the inclusion of the last patient.ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the Regional Research Ethics Committee (journal number H-18050839) and the Danish Medicines Agency (case number 2018101877). The trial is conducted in accordance with the Helsinki declaration and standards of Good Clinical Practice. Study results will be disseminated to participating sites, at research conferences and in peer-reviewed journals.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03862859, EUDRA-CT 2018-000484-86 and CTIS ID 2022-502500-75-00.</p

    Protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing warfarin with no oral anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation on chronic dialysis: the Danish Warfarin-Dialysis (DANWARD) trial

    No full text
    Introduction Atrial fibrillation is highly prevalent in patients on chronic dialysis. It is unclear whether anticoagulant therapy for stroke prevention is beneficial in these patients. Vitamin K-antagonists (VKA) remain the predominant anticoagulant choice. Importantly, anticoagulation remains inconsistently used and a possible benefit remains untested in randomised clinical trials comparing oral anticoagulation with no treatment in patients on chronic dialysis. The Danish Warfarin-Dialysis (DANWARD) trial aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of VKAs in patients with atrial fibrillation on chronic dialysis. The hypothesis is that VKA treatment compared with no treatment is associated with stroke risk reduction and overall benefit.Methods and analysis The DANWARD trial is an investigator-initiated trial at 13 Danish dialysis centres. In an open-label randomised clinical trial study design, a total of 718 patients with atrial fibrillation on chronic dialysis will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either standard dose VKA targeting an international normalised ratio of 2.0–3.0 or no oral anticoagulation. Principal analyses will compare the risk of a primary efficacy endpoint, stroke or transient ischaemic attack and a primary safety endpoint, major bleeding, in patients allocated to VKA treatment and no treatment, respectively. The first patient was randomised in October 2019. Patients will be followed until 1 year after the inclusion of the last patient.Ethics and dissemination The study protocol was approved by the Regional Research Ethics Committee (journal number H-18050839) and the Danish Medicines Agency (case number 2018101877). The trial is conducted in accordance with the Helsinki declaration and standards of Good Clinical Practice. Study results will be disseminated to participating sites, at research conferences and in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numbers NCT03862859, EUDRA-CT 2018-000484-86 and CTIS ID 2022-502500-75-00

    Long-term effects of restriction of intravenous fluid in adult ICU patients with septic shock

    Get PDF
    PURPOSE To assess long-term outcomes of restrictive versus standard intravenous (IV) fluid therapy in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock included in the European Conservative versus Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy in Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial. METHODS We conducted the pre-planned analyses of mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using EuroQol (EQ)-5D-5L index values and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS), and cognitive function using Mini Montreal Cognitive Assessment (Mini MoCA) test at 1 year. Deceased patients were assigned numerical zero for HRQoL as a state equal to death and zero for cognitive function outcomes as worst possible score, and we used multiple imputation for missing data on HRQoL and cognitive function. RESULTS Among 1554 randomized patients, we obtained 1-year data on mortality in 97.9% of patients, HRQoL in 91.3%, and cognitive function in 86.3%. One-year mortality was 385/746 (51.3%) in the restrictive-fluid group versus 383/767 (49.9%) in the standard-fluid group, absolute risk difference 1.5%-points [99% confidence interval (CI) - 4.8 to 7.8]. Mean differences were 0.00 (99% CI - 0.06 to 0.05) for EQ-5D-5L index values, - 0.65 for EQ VAS (- 5.40 to 4.08), and - 0.14 for Mini MoCA (- 1.59 to 1.14) for the restrictive-fluid group versus the standard-fluid group. The results for survivors only were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS Among adult ICU patients with septic shock, restrictive versus standard IV fluid therapy resulted in similar survival, HRQoL, and cognitive function at 1 year, but clinically important differences could not be ruled out
    corecore