Search

Background: The distal transradial access (dTRA) has become an attractive and alternative access to the conventional transradial access (TRA) for cardiovascular interventional diagnosis and/or treatment. There was a lack of randomized clinical trials to evaluate the effect of the dTRA on the long-term radial artery occlusion (RAO). Methods: This was a prospective, randomized controlled study. The primary endpoint was the incidence of long-term RAO at 3 months after discharge. The secondary endpoints included the successful puncture rate, puncture time, and other access-related complications. Results: The incidence of long-term RAO was 0.8% (3/361) for dTRA and 3.3% (12/365) for TRA (risk ratio = 0.25, 95% confidence interval = 0.07–0.88, P = 0.02). The incidence of RAO at 24 h was significantly lower in the dTRA group than in the TRA group (2.5% vs. 6.7%, P < 0.01). The puncture success rate (96.0% vs. 98.5%, P = 0.03) and single puncture attempt (70.9% vs. 83.9%, P < 0.01) were significantly lower in the dTRA group than in the TRA group. However, the number of puncture attempts and puncture time were higher in the dTRA group. The dTRA group had a lower incidence of bleeding than the TRA group (1.5% vs. 6.0%, P < 0.01). There was no difference in the success rate of the procedure, total fluoroscopy time, or incidence of other access-related complications between the two groups. In the per-protocol analysis, the incidence of mEASY type ≥ II haematoma was significantly lower in the dTRA group, which was consistent with that in the as-treated analysis. Conclusions: The dTRA significantly reduced the incidence of long-term RAO, bleeding or haematoma. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifer: NCT05253820. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although many conventional healthcare services to prevent postpartum depression are provided face-to-face, physical and psychosocial barriers remain. These barriers may be overcome by using mobile health services (mHealth). To examine the effectiveness of mHealth professional consultation services in preventing postpartum depressive symptoms in real-world settings, we conducted this randomized controlled trial in Japan, where universal free face-to-face perinatal care is available. Methods: This study included 734 pregnant women living in Yokohama city who could communicate in Japanese, recruited at public offices and childcare support facilities. The participants were randomized to the mHealth group (intervention, n = 365), where they could use a free app-based mHealth consultation service with gynecologists/obstetricians, pediatricians, and midwives whenever and as many times as they wanted between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. on weekdays throughout their pregnancy and postpartum periods (funded by the City of Yokohama government) or the usual care group (control, n = 369). The primary outcome was the risk of elevated postpartum depressive symptoms, defined as Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale score ≥ 9. Secondary outcomes were self-efficacy, loneliness, perceived barriers to healthcare access, number of clinic visits, and ambulance usage. All outcomes were collected three months post-delivery. We also conducted subgroup analyses assessing the differences in the treatment effect by sociodemographic status. Results: Most women completed all questionnaires (n = 639 of 734, response rate: 87%). The mean baseline age was 32.9 ± 4.2 years, and 62% were primipara. Three months post-delivery, women in the mHealth group had a lower risk of elevated postpartum depressive symptoms (47/310 [15.2%]) compared to the usual care group (75/329 [22.8%], risk ratio: 0.67 [95% confidence interval: 0.48–0.93]). Compared with the usual care group, women in the mHealth group had higher self-efficacy, less loneliness, and fewer perceived barriers to healthcare access. No differences were observed in the frequency of clinic visits or ambulance usage. Furthermore, in the subgroup analyses, we did not find differences in the treatment effect by sociodemographic status. Conclusions: Local government-funded mHealth consultation services have a preventive effect on postpartum depressive symptoms, removing physical and psychological barriers to healthcare access in real-world settings. Trial registration: UMIN-CTR identifier: UMIN000041611. Registered 31 August 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Incomplete reporting is a frequent waste in research. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of a writing aid tool (WAT) based on the CONSORT statement and its extension for non-pharmacologic treatments on the completeness of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Methods: We performed a 'split-manuscript' RCT with blinded outcome assessment. Participants were masters and doctoral students in public health. They were asked to write, over a 4-hour period, the methods section of a manuscript based on a real RCT protocol, with a different protocol provided to each participant. Methods sections were divided into six different domains: 'trial design', 'randomization', 'blinding', 'participants', 'interventions', and 'outcomes'. Participants had to draft all six domains with access to the WAT for a random three of six domains. The random sequence was computer-generated and concealed. For each domain, the WAT comprised reminders of the corresponding CONSORT item(s), bullet points detailing all the key elements to be reported, and examples of good reporting. The control intervention consisted of no reminders. The primary outcome was the mean global score for completeness of reporting (scale 0-10) for all domains written with or without the WAT.Results: Forty-one participants wrote 41 different manuscripts of RCT methods sections, corresponding to 246 domains (six for each of the 41 protocols). All domains were analyzed. For the primary outcome, the mean (SD) global score for completeness of reporting was higher with than without use of the WAT: 7.1 (1.2) versus 5.0 (1.6), with a mean (95 % CI) difference 2.1 (1.5-2.7; P <0.01). Completeness of reporting was significantly higher with the WAT for all domains except for blinding and outcomes.Conclusion: Use of the WAT could improve the completeness of manuscripts reporting the results of RCTs.Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov ( http://clinicaltrials.gov NCT02127567 , registration date first received April 29, 2014). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) have been shown to be effective in patients with heart failure or myocardial infarction complicated by a reduced ejection fraction. However, the role of MRAs in patients with preserved ejection fraction (PEF) remains to be clarified. We aimed to summarize the evidence for the efficacy of MRAs in patients with either heart failure with PEF (HF-PEF) or myocardial infarction with PEF (MI-PEF). Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and clinical trials databases for randomized controlled trials, through June 2014, assessing MRA treatment in HF-PEF or MI-PEF patients. Fourteen randomized controlled trials (MI-PEF, 5; HF-PEF, 9; n = 6,428 patients) were included. Results MRA treatment reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure (relative risk, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 0.98), improved quality of life (weighted mean difference [WMD], -5.16; 95% CI, -8.03 to -2.30), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (standardized mean difference, -0.21; 95% CI, 0.32 to -0.11), and serum amino-terminal peptide of procollagen type-Ill level (WMD, -1.50, 95% CI, -1.72 to -1.29) in patients with PEF. In addition, MRAs reduced E/e'(an echocardiographic estimate of filling pressure for assessment of diastolic function; WMD, -1.82; 95% CI, -2.23 to -1.42) in HF-PEF patients and E/A ratio (the ratio of early to late diastolic transmitral flow; WMD, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.14) in MI-PEF patients. However, all-cause mortality was not improved by MRAs in either HF-PEF (P = 0.90) or MI-PEF (P = 0.27) patients. Conclusions MRA treatment in PEF patients led to reduced hospitalization for heart failure, quantifiable improvements in quality of life and diastolic function, and reversal of cardiac remodeling, but did not provide any all-cause mortality benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Inadequate planning, selective reporting, and incomplete reporting of outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) contribute to the problem of waste of research. We aimed to describe such a waste and to examine to what extent this waste could be avoided.Methods: This research-on-research study was based on RCTs included in Cochrane reviews with a summary of findings (SoF) table. We considered the outcomes reported in the SoF tables as surrogates for important outcomes for patients and other decision makers. We used a three-step approach. (1) First, in each review, we identified, for each important outcome, RCTs that were excluded from the corresponding meta-analysis. (2) Then, for these RCTs, we systematically searched for registrations and protocols to distinguish between inadequate planning (an important outcome was not reported in registries or protocols), selective reporting (an important outcome was reported in registries or protocols but not in publications), and incomplete reporting (an important outcome was incompletely reported in publications). (3) Finally, we assessed, with the consensus of five experts, the feasibility and cost of measuring the important outcomes that were not planned. We considered inadequately planned or selectively or incompletely reported important outcomes as avoidable waste if the outcome could have been easily measured at no additional cost based on expert evaluation.Results: Of the 2711 RCTs included in the main comparison of 290 reviews, 2115 (78%) were excluded from at least one meta-analysis of important outcomes. Every trial contributed to 55%, on average, of the meta-analyses of important outcomes. Of the 310 RCTs published in 2010 or later, 156 were registered. Inadequate planning affected 79% of these RCTs, whereas incomplete and selective reporting affected 41% and 15%, respectively. For 63% of RCTs, we found at least one missing important outcome for which the waste was avoidable and for 30%, the waste was avoidable for all important outcomes.Conclusions: Most of the RCTs included in our sample did not contribute to all the important outcomes in meta-analyses, mostly because of inadequate planning or incomplete reporting. A large part of this waste of research seemed to be avoidable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]