跳至主要内容
临床试验/NCT04594161
NCT04594161已完成不适用

Effectiveness of Drainage of the Kidney by Percutaneous Nephrostomy Catheter Placement Vs. Retrograde Double J Catheter Placement in Patients With Symptoms of Obstructive Kidney Disease Caused by Urolithiasis

Academisch Medisch Centrum - Universiteit van Amsterdam (AMC-UvA)2 个研究点 分布在 1 个国家目标入组 204 人开始时间: 2020年7月15日最近更新:
适应症
干预措施

试验速览

阶段
不适用
状态
已完成
入组人数
204
试验地点
2
主要终点
time (hours) to clinical recovery regarding pain

研究概览

简要总结

To investigate the effectiveness of percutaneous nephrostomy catheter placement versus retrograde double J catheter placement in patients with symptoms of obstructive kidney disease (with either infection and/or pain and/or kidney function deterioration) caused by urolithiasis.

详细描述

SUMMARY Rationale If a stone obstructs the ureter and impairs urine-efflux from the kidney this may cause infection, pain resulting from a renal colic and/or renal impairment. Drainage of the kidney may be necessary and can be established by placement of either a percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) or a retrograde double J catheter (JJ). Considering method of drainage, setting, room in which drainage procedures takes place and anesthesia method, there are in fact 16 different approaches for drainage available, each with its own consequences for the patient and on expenses. Although evidence is poor, both methods of drainage are to be considered as equal.[1] This is reflected by the differences in preference between different countries.[2] In 2016 the Dutch association for urology (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Urologie (NVU)) marked this subject as one of the primary knowledge gaps in urology in The Netherlands and gave it priority on the national knowledge agenda for urology.[3] From patients' as well as from societal perspective it is of importance that the decision for placement of either PCN or JJ will be made based on evidence based arguments and in a uniform way.

Hypothesis: Percutaneous nephrostomy is non inferior to retrograde double J catheter regarding time to clinical recovery. Secondly, patient reported outcome measures (PROMS) comparing treatment room and OR settings of drainage procedures will most likely not be significantly different.

Finally, because percutaneous nephrostomy catheters are more often placed in a (outpatient) urological or radiological treatment room, this is expected to be less expensive than placement of a double J catheter (more often placed in the OR). Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of percutaneous nephrostomy catheter placement versus retrograde double J catheter placement in patients with symptoms of obstructive kidney disease (with either infection and/or pain and/or kidney function deterioration) caused by urolithiasis.

Study design: Multicenter prospective randomized controlled non-inferiority trial.

Study population: Male and female adult patients with signs of obstructive kidney disease with kidney or ureteral lithiasis as an underlying cause and with an indication for drainage based on symptoms of or laboratory tests indicating infection and/or pain and/or kidney function.

研究设计

研究类型
Interventional
分配方式
Randomized
干预模型
Parallel
主要目的
Other
盲法
None

盲法说明

No masking is possible because stent is visible to patient and physician

入排标准

性别
All
接受健康志愿者

入选标准

  • In order to be considered eligible to participate in this study, a subject must meet all of the following criteria:
  • Male/female >18 year
  • Symptoms and/or laboratory results indicating obstructive kidney disease with or without infection.
  • A kidney or ureteral stone is present on ultrasound or CT (max 3 months old prior to presentation)
  • Both drainage techniques are feasible and safe in opinion of the treating physician (from logistics point of view and in the best interest of the patient).
  • Willing and able to comply with filling in questionnaires and follow-up regiment

排除标准

  • A potential subject who meets any of the following criteria will be excluded from participation in this study:
  • Analphabetic or not mastering the Dutch language
  • Pregnancy
  • Usage of anticoagulation agents other than acetylsalicylic acid.
  • Contraindication for either technique looking at history and anatomy (e.g. kidney transplant, pouch, Bricker deviation, urethral or ureteral stenosis)

研究组 & 干预措施

Percutaneous Nephrostomy

Active Comparator

drainage of the kidney by means of a percutaneous Nephrostomy

干预措施: Percutaneous Nephrostomy (Device)

Double J catheter

Active Comparator

drainage of the kidney by means of a double J catheter

干预措施: Double J catheter (Device)

结局指标

主要结局

time (hours) to clinical recovery regarding pain

时间窗: 3 months

Unit is hours (0-∞), higher scores mean a worse outcome. Clinical recovery is defined as reaching one or more of the following criteria (all criteria are added seperately) If indication for drainage is untreatable pain clinical recover is defined as: Numeric Rating Score (NRS) considering pain resulting from a renal colic is improved and \< 3 points (higher scores mean greater level of pain).

time (in hours) to clinical recovery regarding kidney function

时间窗: 3 months

Unit is hours (0-∞), higher scores mean a worse outcome. Clinical recovery is defined as reaching one or more of the following criteria (all criteria are added seperately) If indication for drainage is deterioration of kidney function: improvement of creatinine (μmol/L) and/or Glomerular Filtration Rate (ml/min/1.73 m2) in two executive laboratory results.

time (hours) to clinical recovery regarding infection

时间窗: 3 months

Unit is hours (0-∞), higher scores mean a worse outcome. Clinical recovery is defined as reaching one or more of the following criteria (all criteria are added seperately) \- If indication for drainage is infection clinical recovery is defined as: improvement of infection, indicated by a decrease of WBC (unit: mm3) in two executive laboratory results and at least below 15.000 mm3.

次要结局

  • patient reported outcome measures (PROMS) satisfaction(3 months)
  • patient reported outcome measures (PROMS) quality of life(3 months)
  • patient reported outcome measures (PROMS) pain score(3 months)
  • patient reported outcome measures (PROMS) catheter related problems(3 months)
  • patient reported outcome measures (PROMS) on costs iMCQ (Medical consumption questionnaire)(3 months)
  • patient reported outcome measures (PROMS) productivity(3 months)
  • patient reported outcome measures (PROMS) cost and productivity(3 months)

研究者

申办方类型
Other
责任方
Principal Investigator
主要研究者

Prof.dr. H.P. Beerlage

Professor doctor H.P. Beerlage

Academisch Medisch Centrum - Universiteit van Amsterdam (AMC-UvA)

研究点 (2)

Loading locations...

相似试验