Search PubMedSearch

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Colour-reaction”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

92 records · Page 6Linked to original sources

Combined Effects of Nicorandil and Enhanced External Counterpulsation on Coronary Microcirculation and Exercise Capacity in Patients With Coronary Slow Flow Phenomenon: A Randomized, Controlled, 3-Arm Trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the combined efficacy and safety of combined nicorandil and enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) therapy compared with respective monotherapies in patients with coronary slow flow phenomenon (CSFP). METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, 3-arm clinical trial, 309 patients with angiographically defined CSFP based on corrected TIMI frame count were assigned (1:1:1) to the Nicorandil group (N group, n = 103), the EECP group (E group, n = 103), or the Combined therapy group (N+E group, n = 103). The trial was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT07534410). IMR and CFR were measured to characterize coronary microvascular physiological status and treatment response. The primary endpoint was corrected TFC at 6 months. Key secondary endpoints included invasive physiological indices (IMR and CFR), Seattle Angina Questionnaire scores, 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance, peak oxygen uptake via cardiopulmonary exercise testing, and the 12-month rate of re-hospitalization due to recurrent angina. FINDINGS: At 6 months, the N+E group demonstrated superior improvement in coronary hemodynamics compared to the N and E monotherapy groups, with significantly lower TFC (30.4 &#xb1; 3.5 vs 38.2 &#xb1; 3.8 and 37.5 &#xb1; 4.0, respectively; P < 0.001) and IMR (21.2 &#xb1; 2.8 vs 28.4 &#xb1; 3.2 and 27.6 &#xb1; 3.5, respectively; P < 0.001). Clinical symptoms and functional capacity showed the most substantial gains in the N+E group, with significantly higher Seattle Angina Questionnaire angina frequency scores (87.5 &#xb1; 8.8) and 6MWT distances (506.8 &#xb1; 41.8 m) compared to monotherapy groups (all P < 0.001). Furthermore, peak oxygen uptake in the N+E group increased to 23.5 &#xb1; 2.6 mL/kg/min, significantly outperforming the N and E groups (P < 0.001). During the 12-month follow-up, the observed rate of re-hospitalization due to recurrent angina was lower in the N+E group (5.8%) than in the N group (17.5%, P = 0.017), although this clinical outcome should be interpreted cautiously because the trial was powered primarily for physiological endpoints. No significant differences were observed in the incidence of adverse reactions among the 3 groups (P = 0.954). IMPLICATIONS: For patients with CSFP, the combination of Nicorandil and EECP improved coronary microvascular function, anginal symptoms, and objective exercise tolerance more effectively than either active monotherapy. The lower observed rate of angina-related re-hospitalization suggests a potential clinical benefit, but this finding should be considered exploratory and requires confirmation in trials adequately powered for clinical outcomes.

Humans

Empirical Meropenem Versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam for Critically Ill Adults With Sepsis: Feasibility of a Randomised Trial.

BACKGROUND: Meropenem and piperacillin/tazobactam are commonly used empirical antibiotics in critically ill adults with sepsis, but whether one is superior to the other is uncertain. METHODS: The Empirical Meropenem versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam for Adult Patients with Sepsis (EMPRESS) trial is an ongoing investigator-initiated, randomised, open-label, adaptive clinical trial with an integrated feasibility phase comparing empirical treatment with meropenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam in critically ill adults with sepsis. The integrated feasibility phase enrolled 200 participants across 10 intensive care units (ICUs) in Denmark between 28 June and 12 December 2025. Five pre-specified feasibility criteria were evaluated; if all feasibility criteria were met, the trial would proceed unaltered, whereas failure to meet one or more criteria would require intervention and re-evaluation. RESULTS: We randomised 200 of 284 screened patients (70.4%). The median age was 70&#x2009;years (interquartile range (IQR): 60-77), 65.5% were males. At randomisation, 80.0% received vasopressors or inotropes, and 43.5% were on invasive mechanical ventilation. Four of five pre-specified feasibility criteria were met: time to completion of the feasibility phase (5.5&#x2009;months vs. threshold <&#x2009;12.0&#x2009;months), recruitment proportion (70.4% vs. threshold &#x2265;&#x2009;50.0%), proportion of participants without consent to the continued collection of data (2.5% vs. threshold <&#x2009;5.0%) and protocol adherence (81.0% vs. threshold &#x2265;&#x2009;75.0%). The proportion of participants with timely primary outcome data availability (30-day mortality) within 45&#x2009;days was 85.5% and below the pre-specified threshold of &#x2265;&#x2009;95.0%. The proportions were low in the first 3&#x2009;months (33.3%, 22.2% and 30.8%, respectively), increasing to 95.8% in the last month of the feasibility phase. All-cause mortality at 30&#x2009;days was 30.5%, and specific serious adverse reactions occurred in 4.0% of participants. CONCLUSIONS: In this integrated feasibility evaluation of the EMPRESS trial comparing empirical meropenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam in critically ill adults with sepsis, four of five pre-specified feasibility criteria were met. The unmet criterion, timely primary outcome data availability, improved substantially during the feasibility phase. We consider the trial feasible and will proceed without modifications. EDITORIAL COMMENT: This feasibility study assessed recruitment, randomised allocation and data collection for the multicentre EMPRESS trial. For adaptive trials on trial platforms, careful interim checking of trial design functions is an important and necessary process. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Information System EUCT number: 2023-509703-33-00; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06184659; Universal Trial Number: U1111-1301-6379.

Humans