Conservative management versus invasive management of significant traumatic pneumothoraces in the emergency department (the CoMiTED trial): a study protocol for a randomised non-inferiority trial.

INTRODUCTION: Traumatic pneumothoraces are present in one of five victims of severe trauma. Current guidelines advise chest drain insertion for most traumatic pneumothoraces, although very small pneumothoraces can be managed with observation at the treating clinician's discretion. There remains a large proportion of patients in whom there is clinical uncertainty as to whether an immediate chest drain is required, with no robust evidence to inform practice. Chest drains carry a high risk of complications such as bleeding and infection. The default to invasive treatment may be causing potentially avoidable pain, distress and complications. We are evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an initial conservative approach to the management of patients with traumatic pneumothoraces. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The CoMiTED (Conservative Management in Traumatic Pneumothoraces in the Emergency Department) trial is a multicentre, pragmatic parallel group, individually randomised controlled non-inferiority trial to establish whether initial conservative management of significant traumatic pneumothoraces is non-inferior to invasive management in terms of subsequent emergency pleural interventions, complications, pain, breathlessness and quality of life. We aim to recruit 750 patients from at least 40 UK National Health Service hospitals. Patients allocated to the control (invasive management) group will have a chest drain inserted in the emergency department. For those in the intervention (initial conservative management) group, the treating clinician will be advised to manage the participant without chest drain insertion and undertake observation. The primary outcome is a binary measure of the need for one or more subsequent emergency pleural interventions within 30 days of randomisation. Secondary outcomes include complications, cost-effectiveness, patient-reported quality of life and patient and clinician views of the two treatment options; participants are followed up for 6 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial received approval from the Wales Research Ethics Committee 4 (reference: 22/WA/0118) and the Health Research Authority. Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN35574247.

The high-volume haemodiafiltration vs high-flux haemodialysis registry trial (H4RT): a multi-centre, unblinded, randomised, parallel-group, superiority study to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of high-volume haemodiafiltration and high-flux haemodialysis in people with kidney failure on maintenance dialysis using linkage to routine healthcare databases for outcomes.

BACKGROUND: More than a third of the 65,000 people living with kidney failure in the UK attend a dialysis unit 2-5 times a week to have their blood cleaned for 3-5 h. In haemodialysis (HD), toxins are removed by diffusion, which can be enhanced using a high-flux dialyser. This can be augmented with convection, as occurs in haemodiafiltration (HDF), and improved outcomes have been reported in people who are able to achieve high volumes of convection. This study compares the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of high-volume HDF compared with high-flux HD in the treatment of kidney failure. METHODS: This is a UK-based, multi-centre, non-blinded randomised controlled trial. Adult patients already receiving HD or HDF will be randomised 1:1 to high-volume HDF (aiming for 21+ L of substitution fluid adjusted for body surface area) or high-flux HD. Exclusion criteria include lack of capacity to consent, life expectancy less than 3 months, on HD/HDF for less than 4 weeks, planned living kidney donor transplant or home dialysis scheduled within 3 months, prior intolerance of HDF and not suitable for high-volume HDF for other clinical reasons. The primary outcome is a composite of non-cancer mortality or hospital admission with a cardiovascular event or infection during follow-up (minimum 32 months, maximum 91 months) determined from routine data. Secondary outcomes include all-cause mortality, cardiovascular- and infection-related morbidity and mortality, health-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness and environmental impact. Baseline data will be collected by research personnel on-site. Follow-up data will be collected by linkage to routine healthcare databases - Hospital Episode Statistics, Civil Registration, Public Health England and the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) in England, and equivalent databases in Scotland and Wales, as necessary - and centrally administered patient-completed questionnaires. In addition, research personnel on-site will monitor for adverse events and collect data on adherence to the protocol (monthly during recruitment and quarterly during follow-up). DISCUSSION: This study will provide evidence of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HD as compared to HDF for adults with kidney failure in-centre HD or HDF. It will inform management for this patient group in the UK and internationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN10997319 . Registered on 10 October 2017.