EFFects of Exposure and Cognitive behavioral Therapy for chronic BACK pain ("EFFECT-BACK"): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic back pain is a widespread medical condition associated with high socioeconomic costs and increasing prevalence. Despite the advanced implementation of multidisciplinary approaches, providing a satisfactory treatment offer for those affected is often not possible. Exposure therapy (EXP) promises to be an effective and economical form of treatment and in a previous pilot study showed to be superior to cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in reducing perceived limitations of movement. The current study aims to further compare the efficacy of both treatment methods and identify those patient groups that particularly benefit from EXP. METHODS: The general objective of this randomized multicenter clinical trial (targeted N = 380) is to improve and expand the range of treatments available to patients with chronic back pain. As the primary objective of the study, two different psychological treatments (EXP and CBT) will be compared. The primary outcome measure is a clinically significant improvement in pain-related impairment, measured by the QPBDS, from baseline to 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcome measures are absolute changes and clinically significant improvements in variables coping, psychological flexibility, depressiveness, catastrophizing, exercise avoidance and fear of exercise, and intensity of pain. Participants are recruited in five psychological and medical centers in Germany and receive ten sessions of manualized therapy by trained licensed CBT therapists or clinical psychologists, who are currently in their post-gradual CBT training. Potential predictors of each treatment's efficacy will be explored with a focus on avoidance and coping behavior. CONCLUSION: This study will be the first RCT to compare CBT and EXP in chronic back pain in a large sample, including patients from different care structures due to psychological and medical recruitment centers. By identifying and exploring potential predictors of symptom improvement in each treatment group, this study will contribute to enable a more individualized assignment to treatment modalities and thus improves the care situation for chronic back pain and helps to create a customized treatment program for subgroups of pain patients. If our findings confirm EXP to be an efficacious and efficient treatment concept, it should gain more attention and be further disseminated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05294081. Registered on 02 March 2022.

Robotic versus open partial pancreatoduodenectomy (EUROPA): a randomised controlled stage 2b trial.

Background: Open partial pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) represents the current gold standard of surgical treatment of a wide range of diseases of the pancreatic head but is associated with morbidity in around 40% of cases. Robotic partial pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is being used increasingly, yet, no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of RPD versus OPD have been published, leaving a low level of evidence to support this practice. Methods: This investigator-initiated, exploratory RCT with two parallel study arms was conducted at a high-volume pancreatic centre in line with IDEAL recommendations (stage 2b). Patients scheduled for elective partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for any indication were randomised (1:1) to RPD or OPD with a centralised web-based tool. The primary endpoint was postoperative cumulative morbidity within 90 days, assessed via the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI). Biometricians were blinded to the intervention, but patients and surgeons were not. The trial was registered prospectively (DRKS00020407). Findings: Between June 3, 2020 and February 14, 2022, 81 patients were randomly assigned to RPD (n = 41) or OPD (n = 40), of whom 62 patients (RPD: n = 29, OPD: n = 33) were analysed in the modified intention to treat analysis. Four patients in the OPD group were randomised, but did not undergo surgery in our department and one patient was excluded in the RPD group due to other reason. Nine patients in the RPD group and 3 patients in the OPD were excluded from the primary analysis because they did not undergo PD, but rather underwent other types of surgery. The CCI after 90 days was comparable between groups (RPD: 34.02 ± 23.48 versus OPD: 36.45 ± 27.65, difference in means [95% CI]: -2.42 [-15.55; 10.71], p = 0.713). The RPD group had a higher incidence of grade B/C pancreas-specific complications compared to the OPD group (17 (58.6%) versus 11 (33.3%); difference in rates [95% CI]: 25.3% [1.2%; 49.4%], p = 0.046). The only complication that occurred significantly more often in the RPD than in the OPD group was clinically relevant delayed gastric emptying. Procedure-related and overall hospital costs were significantly higher and duration of surgery was longer in the RPD group. Blood loss did not differ significantly between groups. The intraoperative conversion rate of RPD was 23%. Overall 90-day mortality was 4.8% without significant differences between RPD and OPD. Interpretation: In the setting of a very high-volume centre, both RPD and OPD can be considered safe techniques. Further confirmatory multicentre RCTs are warranted to uncover potential advantages of RPD in terms of perioperative and long-term outcomes. Funding: Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF: 01KG2010).

Surgical Versus Dilational Tracheostomy in Patients with Severe Stroke: A SETPOINT2 Post hoc Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tracheostomy in mechanically ventilated patients with severe stroke can be performed surgically or dilationally. Prospective data comparing both methods in patients with stroke are scarce. The randomized Stroke-Related Early Tracheostomy vs Prolonged Orotracheal Intubation in Neurocritical Care Trial2 (SETPOINT2) assigned 382 mechanically ventilated patients with stroke to early tracheostomy versus extubation or standard tracheostomy. Surgical tracheostomy (ST) was performed in 41 of 307 SETPOINT2 patients, and the majority received dilational tracheostomy (DT). We aimed to compare ST and DT in these patients with patients. METHODS: All SETPOINT2 patients with ST were compared with a control group of patients with stroke undergoing DT (1:2), selected by propensity score matching that included the factors stroke type, SETPOINT2 randomization group, Stroke Early Tracheostomy score, patient age, and premorbid functional status. Successful decannulation was the primary outcome, and secondary outcome parameters included functional outcome at 6 months and adverse events attributable to tracheostomy. Potential predictors of decannulation were evaluated by regression analysis. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable in the two groups of patients with stroke undergoing ST (n = 41) and matched patients with stroke undergoing DT (n = 82). Tracheostomy was performed significantly later in the ST group than in the DT group (median 9 [interquartile range {IQR} 5-12] vs. 9 [IQR 4-11] days after intubation, p = 0.025). Patients with ST were mechanically ventilated longer (median 19 [IQR 17-24] vs.14 [IQR 11-19] days, p = 0.008) and stayed in the intensive care unit longer (median 23 [IQR 16-27] vs. 17 [IQR 13-24] days, p = 0.047), compared with patients with DT. The intrahospital infection rate was significantly higher in the ST group compared to the DT group (14.6% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.002). At 6 months, decannulation rates (56% vs. 61%), functional outcomes, and mortality were not different. However, decannulation was performed later in the ST group compared to the DT group (median 81 [IQR 66-149] vs. 58 [IQR 32-77] days, p = 0.004). Higher baseline Stroke Early Tracheostomy score negatively predicted decannulation. CONCLUSIONS: In ventilated patients with severe stroke in need of tracheostomy, surgical and dilational methods are associated with comparable decannulation rate and functional outcome at 6 months. However, ST was associated with longer time to decannulation and higher rates of early infections, supporting the dilational approach to tracheostomy in ventilated patients with stroke.

Conventional partial pancreatoduodenectomy versus an extended pancreatoduodenectomy (triangle operation) for pancreatic head cancers-study protocol for the randomised controlled TRIANGLE trial.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal carcinoma (PDAC) is the fourth most frequent cause of cancer-related death in the Western world, and its incidence is rising. In patients that undergo curative resection, local recurrence (LR) is frequent. A recently described surgical technique of extended pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) termed the TRIANGLE operation has been proposed as a promising approach to reduce LR and improve disease-free survival in PDAC patients. METHODS: The TRIANGLE trial is a multicentre confirmatory randomised controlled superiority trial with two parallel study groups. A total of 270 patients with suspected or histologically confirmed pancreatic head cancer scheduled for PD will be included in the trial and randomly assigned to the intervention group (extended PD defined as Inoue level 3 dissection along the superior mesenteric and celiac artery as well as removal of all soft tissue in the so-called triangle between the celiac artery, the SMA and the mesenterico-portal axis) or the control group (conventional PD with lymphadenectomy and removal of soft tissue according to current guidelines). The primary endpoint of the trial will be the disease-free survival of patients. Other perioperative outcomes as well as oncological parameters and patient-reported outcomes will be analysed as secondary outcomes. DISCUSSION: Despite multimodal treatment, LR remains high and disease-free survival is limited following PD for PDAC. The TRIANGLE operation could address these shortcomings of conventional PD as indicated in several retrospective studies. However, this technique could be associated with more adverse events for patients including intractable diarrhoea. The TRIANGLE trial will close the evidence gap as well as offer a risk-benefit assessment of this more radical approach to PD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00030576 (UTN U1111-1243-4412) 19th December 2022.

Overall morbidity after total minimally invasive keyhole oesophagectomy versus hybrid oesophagectomy (the MICkey trial): study protocol for a multicentre randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal cancer (EC) is the sixth leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Oesophageal resection is the only curative treatment option for EC which is frequently performed via an abdominal and right thoracic approach (Ivor-Lewis operation). This 2-cavity operation is associated with a high risk of major complications. To reduce postoperative morbidity, several minimally invasive techniques have been developed that can be broadly classified into either hybrid oesophagectomy (HYBRID-E) via laparoscopic/robotic abdominal and open thoracic surgery or total minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIN-E). Both, HYBIRD-E and MIN-E, compare favourable to open oesophagectomy. However, there is still an evidence gap comparing HYBRID-E with MIN-E with regard to postoperative morbidity. METHODS: The MICkey trial is a multicentre randomized controlled superiority trial with two parallel study groups. A total of 152 patients with oesophageal cancer scheduled for elective oesophagectomy will be randomly assigned 1:1 to the control group (HYBRID-E) or to the intervention group (MIN-E). The primary endpoint will be overall postoperative morbidity assessed via the comprehensive complication index (CCI) within 30 days after surgery. Specific perioperative parameters, as well as patient-reported and oncological outcomes, will be analysed as secondary outcomes. DISCUSSION: The MICkey trial will address the yet unanswered question whether the total minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIN-E) is superior to the HYBRID-E procedure regarding overall postoperative morbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS00027927 U1111-1277-0214. Registered on 4th July 2022.

Prophylactic effect of retromuscular mesh placement during loop ileostomy closure on incisional hernia incidence-a multicentre randomised patient- and observer-blind trial (P.E.L.I.O.N trial).

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia is a frequent complication following loop ileostomy reversal. Incisional hernias are associated with morbidity, loss of health-related quality of life and costs and warrant the investigation of prophylactic measures. Prophylactic mesh implantation at the time of surgical stoma reversal has shown to be a promising and safe method to prevent incisional hernias in this setting. However, the efficacy of this method has not yet been investigated in a large multicentre randomised-controlled trial (RCT) with adequate external validity. The P.E.L.I.O.N. trial will evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic mesh reinforcement after loop ileostomy closure in decreasing the rate of incisional hernia versus standard closure alone. METHODS: P.E.L.I.O.N. is a multicentre, patient- and observer-blind RCT. Patients undergoing loop ileostomy closure will undergo intraoperative 1:1 randomisation into either abdominal wall closure with a continuous slowly absorbable suture in small-stitch technique without mesh reinforcement (control group) or abdominal wall closure with an additional reinforcement with a retromuscular non-absorbable, macro-pore (pore size ≥ 1000 µm or effective porosity >0%) light-weight monofilament or mixed structure mesh. A total of 304 patients (152 per group) will need to be randomised in the study. Based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, 1,014 patients are expected to be screened for eligibility in order to recruit the necessary number of patients. The primary endpoint will be the frequency of incision hernias within 24 months according to the European Hernia Society definition. Secondary endpoints will be the frequency of surgical site occurrences (including surgical site infections, wound seromas and hematomas, and enterocutaneous fistulas), postoperative pain, the number of revision surgeries and health-related quality of life. Safety will be assessed by measuring postoperative complications ≥ grade 3 according to the Dindo-Clavien classification. DISCUSSION: Depending on the results of the P.E.L.I.O.N. trial, prophylactic mesh implantation could become the new standard for loop ileostomy reversal. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS00027921, U1111-1273-4657.

Minimally invasivE versus open total GAstrectomy (MEGA): study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (DRKS00025765).

INTRODUCTION: The only curative treatment for most gastric cancer is radical gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy (LAD). Minimally invasive total gastrectomy (MIG) aims to reduce postoperative morbidity, but its use has not yet been widely established in Western countries. Minimally invasivE versus open total GAstrectomy is the first Western multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to compare postoperative morbidity following MIG vs open total gastrectomy (OG). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This superiority multicentre RCT compares MIG (intervention) to OG (control) for oncological total gastrectomy with D2 or D2+LAD. Recruitment is expected to last for 2 years. Inclusion criteria comprise age between 18 and 84 years and planned total gastrectomy after initial diagnosis of gastric carcinoma. Exclusion criteria include Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status >2, tumours requiring extended gastrectomy or less than total gastrectomy, previous abdominal surgery or extensive adhesions seriously complicating MIG, other active oncological disease, advanced stages (T4 or M1), emergency setting and pregnancy.The sample size was calculated at 80 participants per group. The primary endpoint is 30-day postoperative morbidity as measured by the Comprehensive Complications Index. Secondary endpoints include postoperative morbidity and mortality, adherence to a fast-track protocol and patient-reported quality of life (QoL) scores (QoR-15, EUROQOL EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D), EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-STO22, activities of daily living and Body Image Scale). Oncological endpoints include rate of R0 resection, lymph node yield, disease-free survival and overall survival at 60-month follow-up. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been received by the independent Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty, University of Heidelberg (S-816/2021) and will be received from each responsible ethics committee for each individual participating centre prior to recruitment. Results will be published open access. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00025765.

Neurologic manifestations of COVID-19 in critically ill patients: results of the prospective multicenter registry PANDEMIC.

BACKGROUND: Neurologic manifestations are increasingly reported in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Yet, data on prevalence, predictors and relevance for outcome of neurological manifestations in patients requiring intensive care are scarce. We aimed to characterize prevalence, risk factors and impact on outcome of neurologic manifestations in critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: In the prospective, multicenter, observational registry study PANDEMIC (Pooled Analysis of Neurologic DisordErs Manifesting in Intensive care of COVID-19), we enrolled COVID-19 patients with neurologic manifestations admitted to 19 German intensive care units (ICU) between April 2020 and September 2021. We performed descriptive and explorative statistical analyses. Multivariable models were used to investigate factors associated with disorder categories and their underlying diagnoses as well as to identify predictors of outcome. RESULTS: Of the 392 patients included in the analysis, 70.7% (277/392) were male and the mean age was 65.3 (SD ± 3.1) years. During the study period, a total of 2681 patients with COVID-19 were treated at the ICUs of 15 participating centers. New neurologic disorders were identified in 350 patients, reported by these centers, suggesting a prevalence of COVID-19-associated neurologic disorders of 12.7% among COVID-19 ICU patients. Encephalopathy (46.2%; 181/392), cerebrovascular (41.0%; 161/392) and neuromuscular disorders (20.4%; 80/392) were the most frequent categories identified. Out of 35 cerebrospinal fluid analyses with reverse transcriptase PCR for SARS-COV-2, only 3 were positive. In-hospital mortality was 36.0% (140/389), and functional outcome (mRS 3 to 5) of surviving patients was poor at hospital discharge in 70.9% (161/227). Intracerebral hemorrhage (OR 6.2, 95% CI 2.5-14.9, p < 0.001) and acute ischemic stroke (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.9-8.2, p < 0.001) were the strongest predictors of poor outcome among the included patients. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this well-characterized COVID-19 ICU cohort, that comprised 12.7% of all severe ill COVID-19 patients, neurologic manifestations increase mortality and morbidity. Since no reliable evidence of direct viral affection of the nervous system by COVID-19 could be found, these neurologic manifestations may for a great part be indirect para- or postinfectious sequelae of the infection or severe critical illness. Neurologic ICU complications should be actively searched for and treated.

Effect of Early vs Standard Approach to Tracheostomy on Functional Outcome at 6 Months Among Patients With Severe Stroke Receiving Mechanical Ventilation: The SETPOINT2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Many patients with severe stroke have impaired airway protective reflexes, resulting in prolonged invasive mechanical ventilation. Objective: To test whether early vs standard tracheostomy improved functional outcome among patients with stroke receiving mechanical ventilation. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this randomized clinical trial, 382 patients with severe acute ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke receiving invasive ventilation were randomly assigned (1:1) to early tracheostomy (≤5 days of intubation) or ongoing ventilator weaning with standard tracheostomy if needed from day 10. Patients were randomized between July 28, 2015, and January 24, 2020, at 26 US and German neurocritical care centers. The final date of follow-up was August 9, 2020. Interventions: Patients were assigned to an early tracheostomy strategy (n = 188) or to a standard tracheostomy (control group) strategy (n = 194). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was functional outcome at 6 months, based on the modified Rankin Scale score (range, 0 [best] to 6 [worst]) dichotomized to a score of 0 (no disability) to 4 (moderately severe disability) vs 5 (severe disability) or 6 (death). Results: Among 382 patients randomized (median age, 59 years; 49.8% women), 366 (95.8%) completed the trial with available follow-up data on the primary outcome (177 patients [94.1%] in the early group; 189 patients [97.4%] in the standard group). A tracheostomy (predominantly percutaneously) was performed in 95.2% of the early tracheostomy group in a median of 4 days after intubation (IQR, 3-4 days) and in 67% of the control group in a median of 11 days after intubation (IQR, 10-12 days). The proportion without severe disability (modified Rankin Scale score, 0-4) at 6 months was not significantly different in the early tracheostomy vs the control group (43.5% vs 47.1%; difference, -3.6% [95% CI, -14.3% to 7.2%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.60-1.42]; P = .73). Of the serious adverse events, 5.0% (6 of 121 reported events) in the early tracheostomy group vs 3.4% (4 of 118 reported events) were related to tracheostomy. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe stroke receiving mechanical ventilation, a strategy of early tracheostomy, compared with a standard approach to tracheostomy, did not significantly improve the rate of survival without severe disability at 6 months. However, the wide confidence intervals around the effect estimate may include a clinically important difference, so a clinically relevant benefit or harm from a strategy of early tracheostomy cannot be excluded. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02377167.

ON-ICE trial: Investigation of the combined effects of oxytocin and naltrexone on stress-induced and alcohol cue-induced craving in alcohol use disorder-Study protocol of a phase II randomised double-blind placebo-controlled parallel-group trial.

INTRODUCTION: Although alcohol dependence (AD) is highly prevalent, only few medications are approved for its treatment. While currently approved medications, such as naltrexone (NTX), reduce craving and relapse risk to a certain extent, new approaches are needed to complement these pharmaca. One potential compound is oxytocin (OXY), which proved beneficial effects on alcohol craving and stress reactivity in preliminary clinical studies and synergism with NTX effects. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This clinical phase II trial is a monocentre two-armed, placebo (PLC)-controlled, 1:1 randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study. 62 participants with AD will be randomised to receive either intranasal OXY spray (24 IU) or PLC spray plus oral NTX (50 mg) for 2 days, and alcohol craving will be assessed using a validated combined stress-exposure and cue-exposure experiments and MRI. The primary outcome will be the intensity of alcohol craving, assessed using the Alcohol Urge Questionnaire (AUQ), 60 min after OXY/PLC application, directly after the stress and cue exposures. Secondary outcomes include subjective stress, negative affect, cortisol and OXY plasma levels, and neural response to alcohol and emotional cues and natural rewards. Follow-up drinking data were collected over 90 days. The primary efficacy analysis will test the difference between the verum and the PLC group in the distribution of AUQ craving scores. Appropriate statistical analysis will be used for the evaluation of the secondary outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has been approved by the ethics committee of Heidelberg University and competent authority. All participants in the trial will provide written informed consent. The study will be conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and in accordance to the German Medicinal Products act. Results of this study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed scientific journals and deidentified data, and the statistical analysis plan will be made available via open-access online repositories. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EudraCT 2021-003610-40 and NCT05093296.

APOS-antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing infectious complications in orthognathic surgery: study protocol for a phase III, multicentre, randomised, controlled, double blinded, clinical trial with two parallel study arms.

BACKGROUND: It is a constant debate among surgeons whether the use of prolonged postoperative antibiotics may reduce surgical site infection rates. As specific treatment guidelines are still lacking, many surgeons continue to use broad-spectrum antibiotics, causing not only increased costs but also contributing to the potential for antibiotic resistance. Hence, there is an urgent need for an appropriately designed prospective clinical trial, to investigate whether a prophylactic use of antibiotics after surgery actually decreases surgical site infections to a clinically relevant degree. METHODS: This study presents a multicentre, randomised, controlled, double-blinded, clinical trial with two parallel study arms to demonstrate that no postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) is not inferior to antibiotic prophylaxis with respect to surgical site infections in patients having undergone orthognathic surgery. The primary efficacy endpoint is defined as the occurrence of postoperative surgical site infections within 30 days of surgery. Secondary endpoints are further efficacy and subject-oriented parameters within 90 days after surgery. The entire trial is planned for 54 months, with an enrolment of 1420 patients over 39 months by 14 national participating centres. DISCUSSION: As a highly standardised procedure on an exceeding, healthy and young homogenous study population and identical processes all over the world, elective orthognathic surgery as clean-contaminated procedure provides comparable intervention groups with balanced baseline characteristics, comparable surgical duration, even when performed within multiple centres. Therefore, evaluating antibiotic prophylaxis after orthognathic surgery will be of high scientific value representable for other surgical procedures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS-German Clinical Trials Register- DRKS00022838 ; EudraCT No. 2020-001397-30. Registered on 29 March 2021.

Next-generation sequencing diagnostics of bacteremia in pediatric sepsis.

INTRODUCTION: Sepsis and septic shock are the most severe forms of infection affecting predominantly elderly people, preterm and term neonates, and young infants. Even in high-income countries sepsis causes about 8% of admissions to pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). Early diagnosis, rapid anti-infective treatment, and prompt hemodynamic stabilization are crucial for patient survival. In this context, it is essential to identify the causative pathogen as soon as possible to optimize antimicrobial treatment. To date, culture-based diagnostic procedures (e.g., blood cultures) represent the standard of care. However, they have 2 major problems: on the one hand, in the case of very small sample volumes (and thus usually in children), they are not sufficiently sensitive. On the other hand, with a time-to-result of 2 to 5 days, blood cultures need a relatively long time for the anti-infective therapy to be calculated. To overcome these problems, culture-independent molecular diagnostic procedures such as unbiased sequence analysis of circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) from plasma samples of septic patients by next-generation sequencing (NGS) have been tested successfully in adult septic patients. However, these results still need to be transferred to the pediatric setting. METHODS: The Next GeneSiPS-Trial is a prospective, observational, non-interventional, multicenter study used to assess the diagnostic performance of an NGS-based approach for the identification of causative pathogens in (preterm and term) neonates (d1-d28, n = 50), infants (d29 to <1 yr, n = 50), and toddlers (1 yr to <5 yr, n = 50) with suspected or proven severe sepsis or septic shock (according to the pediatric sepsis definition) by the use of the quantitative sepsis indicating quantifier (SIQ) score in comparison to standard of care (culture-based) microbiological diagnostics. Potential changes in anti-infective treatment regimens based on these NGS results will be estimated retrospectively by a panel of 3 independent clinical specialists. DISCUSSION: Neonates, infants, and young children are significantly affected by sepsis. Fast and more sensitive diagnostic approaches are urgently needed. This prospective, observational, non-interventional, multicenter study seeks to evaluate an NGS-based approach in critically ill children suffering from sepsis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS-ID: DRKS00015705 (registered October 24, 2018). https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00015705.

Early intervention, treatment and rehabilitation of employees with common mental disorders by using psychotherapeutic consultation at work: study protocol of a randomised controlled multicentre trial (friaa project).

BACKGROUND: Common mental disorders are one of the leading causes for sickness absence and early retirement due to reduced health. Furthermore, a treatment gap for common mental disorders has been described worldwide. Within this study, psychotherapeutic consultation at work defined as a tailored, module-based and work-related psychotherapeutic intervention will be applied to improve mental health care. METHODS: This study comprises a randomised controlled multicentre trial with 1:1 allocation to an intervention and control group. In total, 520 employees with common mental disorders shall be recruited from companies being located around five study centres in Germany. Besides care as usual, the intervention group will receive up to 17 sessions of psychotherapy. The first session will include basics diagnostics and medical indication of treatment and the second session will include work-related diagnostics. Then, participants of the intervention group may receive work-related psychotherapeutic consultation for up to ten sessions. Further psychotherapeutic consultation during return to work for up to five sessions will be offered where appropriate. The control group will receive care as usual and the first intervention session of basic diagnostics and medical indication of treatment. After enrolment to the study, participants will be followed up after nine (first follow-up) and fifteen (second follow-up) months. Self-reported days of sickness absence within the last 6 months at the second follow-up will be used as the primary outcome and self-efficacy at the second follow-up as the secondary outcome. Furthermore, a cost-benefit assessment related to costs of common mental disorders for social insurances and companies will be performed. DISCUSSION: Psychotherapeutic consultation at work represents a low threshold care model aiming to overcome treatment gaps for employees with common mental disorders. If successfully implemented and evaluated, it might serve as a role model to the care of employees with common mental disorders and might be adopted in standard care in cooperation with sickness and pension insurances in Germany. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The friaa project was registered at the German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS) at 01.03.2021 (DRKS00023049): https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00023049 .

Protocol for a randomised controlled trial to compare postoperative complications between minimally invasive and open DIStal PAnCreaTectomy (DISPACT-2 trial).

INTRODUCTION: In recent years, minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has been used with increasing frequency to accelerate patient recovery. Distal pancreatectomy has an overall morbidity rate of 30%-40%. The known advantages of minimally invasive techniques must be rigorously compared with those of open surgery before they can be completely implemented into clinical practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: DISPACT-2 is a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing minimally invasive (conventional laparoscopic or robotic assisted) with open distal pancreatic resection in patients undergoing elective surgery for benign as well as malign diseases of the pancreatic body and tail. After screening for eligibility and obtaining informed consent, a total of 294 adult patients will be preoperatively randomised in a 1:1 ratio. The primary hypothesis is that MIDP is non-inferior to open distal pancreatectomy in terms of postoperative mortality and morbidity expressed as the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) within 3 months after index operation, with a non-inferiority margin of 7.5 CCI points. Secondary endpoints include pancreas-specific complications, oncological safety and patient reported outcomes. Follow-up for each individual patient will be 2 years. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The DISPACT-2 trial has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the medical faculty of Heidelberg University (S-693/2017). Results of the primary endpoint will be available in 2024 and will be published at national and international meetings. Full results will be made available in an open access, peer-reviewed journal. The website www.dispact.de contains up-to-date information regarding the trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00014011.

Gastrointestinal Complications After Pancreatoduodenectomy With Epidural vs Patient-Controlled Intravenous Analgesia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Morbidity is still high in pancreatic surgery, driven mainly by gastrointestinal complications such as pancreatic fistula. Perioperative thoracic epidural analgesia (EDA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) are frequently used for pain control after pancreatic surgery. Evidence from a post hoc analysis suggests that PCIA is associated with fewer gastrointestinal complications. Objective: To determine whether postoperative PCIA decreases the occurrence of gastrointestinal complications after pancreatic surgery compared with EDA. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this adaptive, pragmatic, international, multicenter, superiority randomized clinical trial conducted from June 30, 2015, to October 1, 2017, 371 patients at 9 European pancreatic surgery centers who were scheduled for elective pancreatoduodenectomy were randomized to receive PCIA (n = 185) or EDA (n = 186); 248 patients (124 in each group) were analyzed. Data were analyzed from February 22 to April 25, 2019, using modified intention to treat and per protocol. Interventions: Patients in the PCIA group received general anesthesia and postoperative PCIA with intravenous opioids with the help of a patient-controlled analgesia device. In the EDA group, patients received general anesthesia and intraoperative and postoperative EDA. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was a composite of pancreatic fistula, bile leakage, delayed gastric emptying, gastrointestinal bleeding, or postoperative ileus within 30 days after surgery. Secondary end points included 30-day mortality, other complications, postoperative pain levels, intraoperative or postoperative use of vasopressor therapy, and fluid substitution. Results: Among the 248 patients analyzed (147 men; mean [SD] age, 64.9 [10.7] years), the primary composite end point did not differ between the PCIA group (61 [49.2%]) and EDA group (57 [46.0%]) (odds ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.71-1.95 P = .54). Neither individual components of the primary end point nor 30-day mortality, postoperative pain levels, or intraoperative and postoperative substitution of fluids differed significantly between groups. Patients receiving EDA gained more weight by postoperative day 4 than patients receiving PCIA (mean [SD], 4.6 [3.8] vs 3.4 [3.6] kg; P = .03) and received more vasopressors (46 [37.1%] vs 31 [25.0%]; P = .04). Failure of EDA occurred in 23 patients (18.5%). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that the choice between PCIA and EDA for pain control after pancreatic surgery should not be based on concerns regarding gastrointestinal complications because the 2 procedures are comparable with regard to effectiveness and safety. However, EDA was associated with several shortcomings. Trial Registration: German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00007784.

Postoperative complications and mobilisation following major abdominal surgery with vs. without fitness tracker-based feedback (EXPELLIARMUS): study protocol for a student-led multicentre randomised controlled trial (CHIR-Net SIGMA study group).

BACKGROUND: Postoperative complications following major abdominal surgery are frequent despite progress in surgical technique and perioperative care. Early and enhanced postoperative mobilisation has been advocated to reduce postoperative complications, but it is still unknown whether it can independently improve outcomes after major surgery. Fitness trackers (FTs) are a promising tool to improve postoperative mobilisation, but their effect on postoperative complications and recovery has not been investigated in clinical trials. METHODS: This is a multicentre randomised controlled trial with two parallel study groups evaluating the efficacy of an enhanced and early mobilisation protocol in combination with FT-based feedback in patients undergoing elective major abdominal surgery. Participants are randomly assigned (1:1) to either the experimental group, which receives daily step goals and a FT giving feedback about daily steps, or the control group, which is mobilised according to hospital standards. The control group also receives a FT, however with a blackened screen; thus no FT-based feedback is possible. Randomisation will be stratified by type of surgery (laparoscopic vs. open). The primary endpoint of the study is postoperative morbidity within 30 days measured via the Comprehensive Complication Index. Secondary endpoints include number of steps as well as a set of functional, morbidity and safety parameters. A total of 348 patients will be recruited in 15 German centres. The study will be conducted and organised by the student-led German Clinical Trial Network SIGMA. DISCUSSION: Our study aims at investigating whether the implementation of a simple mobilisation protocol in combination with FT-based feedback can reduce postoperative morbidity in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. If so, FTs would offer a cost-effective intervention to enhance postoperative mobilisation and improve patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien (DRKS, German Clinical Trials Register): DRKS00016755, UTN U1111-1228-3320. Registered on 06.03.2019.

[Design and Evaluation of a Clinical Investigator Training for Student-lead Prospective Multicentre Clinical Trials: a CHIR-Net SIGMA Research-based Learning Project]. / Design und Evaluation eines Prüf-Studierenden-Kurses für studentische prospektive Multicenterstudien ­ ein CHIR-Net-SIGMA-Projekt zum forschenden Lernen.

BACKGROUND: Scientific skills are not sufficiently taught during medical training, neither in medical school nor during postgraduate education. This results in a lack of clinician scientists. In order to counter this problem, the surgical study network (CHIR-Net) founded SIGMA (Student-initiated German Medical Audit). This paper describes the development, performance and evaluation of a Clinical Investigator Training (CIT) aiming to qualify students to autonomously conduct clinical trials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Based on the Kern cycle, a curriculum was developed, composed of three parts: online tutorials, a workshop and a follow-up period. The educational objectives were defined according to Bloom's taxonomy of knowledge. The learning objectives were based on the requirements of the "Network of Coordinating Centers for Clinical Trials" and the German Medical Association as well as content relevant to clinical studies. A wide range of educational instruments and assessments were used. By including all relevant professional groups involved in clinical trials, an interconnected working environment for students was generated. The increase in knowledge was assessed by a multiple-choice pre/post exam. The satisfaction of participants was analysed by a 5-point Likert scale, on which 5 indicated full approval. RESULTS: The first SIGMA CIT was realised in 2018; the workshop took place in Heidelberg in February. Thirty-two medical students from thirteen different centres participated. On average, 53.8 ± 8.3% of questions were answered correctly in the pre-test, compared with 71.2 ± 7.2% in the post-test (p < 0.0001). The maximal individual improvement was 30%; the lowest difference compared to the pre-test was 5%. Subjective evaluation results were positive with an average result of 4.63 ± 0.34 on a 5-point Likert scale. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to teach medical students the fundamentals of clinical trials. A compact Clinical Investigator Training using modern principles of teaching is able to prepare students for an autonomous performance of clinical trials.

Primary Open Versus Closed Implantation Strategy for Totally Implantable Venous Access Ports: The Multicentre Randomized Controlled PORTAS-3 Trial (DRKS 00004900).

OBJECTIVES: PORTAS-3 was designed to compare the frequency of pneumothorax or haemothorax in a primary open versus closed strategy for port implantation. BACKGROUND DATA: The implantation strategy for totally implantable venous access ports with the optimal benefit/risk ratio remains unclear. METHODS: PORTAS-3 was a multicentre, randomized, controlled, parallel-group superiority trial. Adult patients with oncological disease scheduled for elective port implantation were randomized to a primary open or closed strategy. Primary endpoint was the rate of pneumothorax or haemothorax. Assuming a difference of 2.5% between the 2 groups, a sample size of 1154 patients was needed to prove superiority of the open group. A logistic regression model after the intention-to-treat principle was applied for analysis of the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Between November 9, 2014 and September 5, 2016, 1205 patients were randomized. Of these, 1159 (open n = 583; closed n = 576) were finally analyzed. The rate of pneumothorax or haemothorax was significantly reduced with the open strategy [odds ratio 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09-0.88; P = 0.029]. Operation time was shorter for the closed strategy. Primary success rates, tolerability, morbidity, dose rate of radiation, and 30-day mortality did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSION: A primary open strategy by cut-down of the cephalic vein, if necessary enhanced by a modified Seldinger technique, reduces the frequency of pneumothorax or haemothorax after central venous port implantation significantly compared with a closed strategy by primary puncture of the subclavian vein without routine sonographic guidance. Therefore, open surgical cut-down should be the reference standard for port implantation in comparable cohorts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS 00004900.

Hernia reduction following laparotomy using small stitch abdominal wall closure with and without mesh augmentation (the HULC trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernias are among the most frequent complications following abdominal surgery and cause substantial morbidity, impaired health-related quality of life and costs. Despite improvements in abdominal wall closure techniques, the risk for developing an incisional hernia is reported to be between 10 and 30% following midline laparotomies. There have been two recent innovations with promising results to reduce hernia risks, namely the small stitches technique and the placement of a prophylactic mesh. So far, these two techniques have not been evaluated in combination. METHODS: The HULC trial is a multicentre, randomized controlled, observer- and patient-blinded surgical effectiveness trial with two parallel study groups. A total of 812 patients scheduled for elective abdominal surgery via a midline laparotomy will be randomized in 12 centres after informed consent. Patients will be randomly assigned to the control group receiving closure of the midline incision with a slowly absorbable monofilament suture in the small stitches technique or to the intervention group, who will receive a small stitches closure followed by augmentation with a light-weight polypropylene mesh in the onlay technique. The primary endpoint will be the occurrence of incisional hernias, as defined by the European Hernia Society, within 24 months after surgery. Further perioperative parameters, as well as patient-reported outcomes, will be analysed as secondary outcomes. DISCUSSION: The HULC trial will address the yet unanswered question of whether a combination of small stitched fascial closure and onlay mesh augmentation after elective midline laparotomies reduces the risk of incisional hernias. The HULC trial marks the logical and innovative next step in the development of a safe abdominal closure technique. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00017517. Registered on 24th June 2019.

Association of General Anesthesia vs Procedural Sedation With Functional Outcome Among Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke Undergoing Thrombectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: General anesthesia during thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke has been associated with poor neurological outcome in nonrandomized studies. Three single-center randomized trials reported no significantly different or improved outcomes for patients who received general anesthesia compared with procedural sedation. OBJECTIVE: To detect differences in functional outcome at 3 months between patients who received general anesthesia vs procedural sedation during thrombectomy for anterior circulation acute ischemic stroke. DATA SOURCE: MEDLINE search for English-language articles published from January 1, 1980, to July 31, 2019. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials of adults with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of at least 10 and anterior circulation acute ischemic stroke assigned to receive general anesthesia or procedural sedation during thrombectomy. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Individual patient data were obtained from 3 single-center, randomized, parallel-group, open-label treatment trials with blinded end point evaluation that met inclusion criteria and were analyzed using fixed-effects meta-analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Degree of disability, measured via the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score (range 0-6; lower scores indicate less disability), analyzed with the common odds ratio (cOR) to detect the ordinal shift in the distribution of disability over the range of mRS scores. RESULTS: A total of 368 patients (mean [SD] age, 71.5 [12.9] years; 163 [44.3%] women; median [interquartile range] National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, 17 [14-21]) were included in the analysis, including 183 (49.7%) who received general anesthesia and 185 (50.3%) who received procedural sedation. The mean 3-month mRS score was 2.8 (95% CI, 2.5-3.1) in the general anesthesia group vs 3.2 (95% CI, 3.0-3.5) in the procedural sedation group (difference, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.03-0.83]; cOR, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.09-2.29]; P = .02). Among prespecified adverse events, only hypotension (decline in systolic blood pressure of more than 20% from baseline) (80.8% vs 53.1%; OR, 4.26 [95% CI, 2.55-7.09]; P < .001) and blood pressure variability (systolic blood pressure >180 mm Hg or <120 mm Hg) (79.7 vs 62.3%; OR, 2.42 [95% CI, 1.49-3.93]; P < .001) were significantly more common in the general anesthesia group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with acute ischemic stroke involving the anterior circulation undergoing thrombectomy, the use of protocol-based general anesthesia, compared with procedural sedation, was significantly associated with less disability at 3 months. These findings should be interpreted tentatively, given that the individual trials examined were single-center trials and disability was the primary outcome in only 1 trial.