Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
: 20 | 50 | 100
1 - 2 de 2
1.
JAMA ; 311(21): 2191-8, 2014 Jun 04.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24886787

IMPORTANCE: Most acute kidney injury observed in the hospital is defined by sudden mild or moderate increases in the serum creatinine concentration, which may persist for several days. Such acute kidney injury is associated with lower long-term kidney function. However, it has not been demonstrated that an intervention that reduces the risk of such acute kidney injury better preserves long-term kidney function. OBJECTIVES: To characterize the risk of acute kidney injury with an intervention in a randomized clinical trial and to determine if there is a difference between the 2 treatment groups in kidney function 1 year later. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery Off- or On-pump Revascularisation Study (CORONARY) enrolled 4752 patients undergoing first isolated coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery at 79 sites in 19 countries. Patients were randomized to receive CABG surgery either with a beating-heart technique (off-pump) or with cardiopulmonary bypass (on-pump). From January 2010 to November 2011, 2932 patients (from 63 sites in 16 countries) from CORONARY were enrolled into a kidney function substudy to record serum creatinine concentrations during the postoperative period and at 1 year. The last 1-year serum creatinine concentration was recorded on January 18, 2013. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Acute kidney injury within 30 days of surgery (≥50% increase in serum creatinine concentration from prerandomization concentration) and loss of kidney function at 1 year (≥20% loss in estimated glomerular filtration rate from prerandomization level). RESULTS: Off-pump (n = 1472) vs on-pump (n = 1460) CABG surgery reduced the risk of acute kidney injury (17.5% vs 20.8%, respectively; relative risk, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.72-0.97], P = .01); however, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in the loss of kidney function at 1 year (17.1% vs 15.3%, respectively; relative risk, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.95-1.29], P = .23). Results were consistent with multiple alternate continuous and categorical definitions of acute kidney injury or kidney function loss, and in the subgroup with baseline chronic kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Use of off-pump compared with on-pump CABG surgery reduced the risk of postoperative acute kidney injury, without evidence of better preserved kidney function with off-pump CABG surgery at 1 year. In this setting, an intervention that reduced the risk of mild to moderate acute kidney injury did not alter longer-term kidney function. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00463294.


Acute Kidney Injury/prevention & control , Cardiopulmonary Bypass , Coronary Artery Bypass, Off-Pump , Aged , Creatinine/blood , Female , Glomerular Filtration Rate , Humans , Kidney/physiopathology , Kidney Function Tests , Male , Middle Aged , Renal Insufficiency, Chronic , Risk Factors , Treatment Outcome
2.
Clin Trials ; 5(1): 56-60, 2008.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-18283081

PURPOSE: The use of centralized systems to adjudicate clinical events is common in large clinical trials, in spite of relatively little published literature concerning the rationale and justification. The purpose of this manuscript is to review the reasons for central adjudication and to discuss whether trials could be simplified by limiting or streamlining the adjudication process. METHODS: We reviewed the literature concerning central adjudication and documented the experience of adjudication in several clinical trials. Since definitions for nonfatal events are generally heterogeneous and subjective, one reason for a central process of adjudication is to assist in assuring systematic application of the definition used in the trial. In open-label trials, assuring that the adjudication is done blinded to treatment assignment may provide protection against differential misclassification. Regulatory authorities, including the FDA, derive confidence in the validity of results when central adjudication is performed. The clinical community has become accustomed to a certain amount of adjudication and may criticize trials that lack adjudication. LIMITATIONS: It is difficult to document the value of adjudication in trials that have reported adjudicated and nonadjudicated event rates and related treatment effects. Making rationale decisions about when and how to adjudicate is hampered by the lack of published study of when and how central adjudication is helpful to improve the quality and validity of trials and at what cost. CONCLUSIONS: Adjudication has not been shown to improve the ability to determine treatment effects. Thus, adjudication may be overly complex and overused in many large simple trials. The appropriate role of central adjudication - which trials, which outcomes, what methods - deserves scrutiny and further study.


Clinical Trials as Topic/methods , Decision Making , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions , Humans , Research Design , Treatment Outcome
...