scholarly journals Combination of InnoSEAL plus TR band compared with TR band alone for radial artery outcomes in patients undergoing transradial coronary intervention (InnoSEAL-II): an open-label randomised controlled trial (protocol)

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e042101
Author(s):  
Saba Aijaz ◽  
Sana Sheikh ◽  
Asad Pathan
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Radial Artery ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
P Value ◽  
Radial Compression ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionAbout 2%–30% of cardiac catheterisation procedures get complicated by radial artery occlusion (RAO). Ensuring patent haemostasis appears to be an important factor in reducing RAO. Currently employed method is a radial compression device (RCD) such as transradial band (TRB) that take hours to achieve haemostasis and cause discomfort to the patients. Haemostatic pads offer an alternative to RCD with reduced time to achieve haemostasis. Our trial aims to determine the non-inferiority of the catecholamine chitosan-based pad (InnoSEAL haemostatic pad) used in conjunction with TRB (InnoSEAL +TRB) when compared with the TRB alone in reducing composite adverse access site outcomes.Methods and analysisIt will be an open-label, parallel, randomised controlled trial on 714 adult patients (325 in each arm) undergoing coronary procedure using transradial approach at a cardiac health facility over 7 months duration. InnoSEAL patch along with TRB will be used to control bleeding in intervention arm and TRB alone in control arm, which is the standard practice. Study primary outcomes include RAO and haematoma; secondary outcomes are compression time, patient discomfort, time to discharge and ease of use of the intervention technique by the healthcare staff. χ2 test will be used to compare the categorical outcomes between two arms and student’s t-test for continuous outcomes. A p value of <0.05 will be considered significant.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for the study has been obtained from the Institutional Review Board of Tabba Heart Institute number IORG0007863. Findings will be disseminated through seminars and scientific publications.Trial registration numberNCT04380883; Pre-results.

scholarly journals Rationale and design of a prospective substudy of clinical endpoint adjudication processes within an investigator-reported randomised controlled trial in patients with coronary artery disease: the GLOBAL LEADERS Adjudication Sub-StudY (GLASSY)

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. e026053 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergio Leonardi ◽  
Anna Franzone ◽  
Raffaele Piccolo ◽  
Eugene McFadden ◽  
Pascal Vranckx ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Ethics Committee ◽  
Current Treatment ◽  
Clinical Event ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Standard Regimen ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionThe GLOBAL LEADERS is an open-label, pragmatic and superiority randomised controlled trial designed to challenge the current treatment paradigm of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 12 months followed by aspirin monotherapy among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. By design, all study endpoints are investigator reported (IR) and not subject to formal adjudication by an independent Clinical Event Committee (CEC), which may introduce detection, reporting or ascertainment bias.Methods and analysisWe designed the GLOBAL LEADERS Adjudication Sub-StudY (GLASSY) to prospectively implement, in a large sample of patients enrolled within the GLOBAL LEADERS trial (7585 of 15 991, 47.5%), an independent adjudication process of reported and unreported potential endpoints, using standardised CEC procedures, in order to assess whether 23-month ticagrelor monotherapy (90 mg twice daily) after 1-month DAPT is non-inferior to a standard regimen of DAPT for 12 months followed by aspirin monotherapy for the primary efficacy endpoint of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or urgent target vessel revascularisation and superior for the primary safety endpoint of type 3 or 5 bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criteria.This study will comprehensively assess the comparative safety and efficacy of the two tested antithrombotic strategies on CEC-adjudicated ischaemic and bleeding endpoints and will provide insights into the role of a standardised CEC adjudication process on the interpretation of study findings by quantifying the level of concordance between IR-reported and CEC-adjudicated events.Ethics and disseminationGLASSY has been approved by local ethics committee of all study sites and/or by the central ethics committee for the country depending on country-specific regulations. In all cases, they deemed that it was not necessary to obtain further informed consent from individual subjects.Trial registration numberNCT01813435.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document