Kidney TransplantPGDTNCT05035537
PGDT in Patients Undergoing Kidney Transplant
A study testing PGDT in people with Kidney Transplant and Complications, run by IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna at 2 sites in Italy.
Trial summary
This study is a multicentric randomized controlled trial comparing two groups of patients undergoing single or dual kidney transplantation from deceased donors. To reduce perioperative complications optimal fluid management is essential in patients undergoing kidney transplantation. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Kidney Transplant, Complications
- What is being tested?
- PGDT
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 181 participants
- Where
- 2 sitesItaly
- Study dates
- 1 Jan 2018to 30 Nov 2023
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- age > 18 years,
- first single- or dual-kidney transplant from a deceased donor,
- absence of atrial fibrillation or other severe arrythmia,
- ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) class III-IV,
- presence of written expression of consent.
Who cannot join
- patients receiving a retransplant,
- patients receiving a combined liver-kidney transplant,
- patients receiving a transplant from a living donor .
Trial locations and contacts
2 sites in 1 country.
Italy2 sites
SOD Anestesia e Rianimazione dei Trapianti e Chirurgia Maggiore, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Ospedali Riuniti Umberto I - GM Lancisi - G Salesi
Ancona, Ancona, 60126
Dipartimento di Anestesia e Rianimazione - Città della salute e della scienza, Torino
Torino, Torino, 10126
About this study
Official title: Hemodynamic Optimization with Perioperative Gold Directed Therapy (PGDT) in Kidney Transplant
This study is a multicentric randomized controlled trial comparing two groups of patients undergoing single or dual kidney transplantation from deceased donors. To reduce perioperative complications optimal fluid management is essential in patients undergoing kidney transplantation. Heart rate, Medium Arterial Pressure (MAP), Central Venous Pressure (CVP), and urine output have been proposed in the literature to guide perioperative fluid therapy. These criteria are routinely applied in clinical practice; however these criteria have shown low sensitivity and poor predictive of postoperative complication, especially if used alone. The traditional approach in renal transplantation is the volume infusion guided whit CVP to the point of no further fluid responsiveness, but this can lead to excess fluid which can damage the endothelial glycocalyx and lead to organ failure for a fluid shift into the interstitial space.
As a way to reduce postoperative complications in surgical patients, in recent years, several studies have examined Perioperative Goal Directed Therapy (PGDT) as fluid administration guided by optimization of preload with the use of algorithms based on fluids, inotropes and/or vasopressors to achieve a certain goal in stroke volume (SV), cardiac index (CI), or oxygen delivery (DO2). However results regarding the potential role of PGDT cannot be considered definitive, because the various studies on the subject have not all conformed to the same methods and have not uniformly applied the same measurements, so their results regarding the potential role of PGDT cannot be considered definitive.
The aim of this work is to compare the effects of PGDT with conventional fluid therapy in patients undergoing kidney transplantation achievable through implementation of the non invasive monitoring.
Read the detailed description
To reduce perioperative complications optimal fluid management is essential in patients undergoing kidney transplantation. Heart rate, Medium Arterial Pressure (MAP), Central Venous Pressure (CVP), and urine output have been proposed in the literature to guide perioperative fluid therapy. These criteria are routinely applied in clinical practice; however these criteria have shown low sensitivity and poor predictive of postoperative complication, especially if used alone. The traditional approach in renal transplantation is the volume infusion guided whit CVP to the point of no further fluid responsiveness, but this can lead to excess fluid which can damage the endothelial glycocalyx and lead to organ failure for a fluid shift into the interstitial space.
As a way to reduce postoperative complications in surgical patients, in recent years, several studies have examined Perioperative Goal Directed Therapy (PGDT) as fluid administration guided by optimization of preload with the use of algorithms based on fluids, inotropes and/or vasopressors to achieve a certain goal in stroke volume (SV), cardiac index (CI), or oxygen delivery (DO2). However results regarding the potential role of PGDT cannot be considered definitive, because the various studies on the subject have not all conformed to the same methods and have not uniformly applied the same measurements, so their results regarding the potential role of PGDT cannot be considered definitive.
The aim of this work is to compare the effects of PGDT with conventional fluid therapy in patients undergoing kidney transplantation achievable through implementation of the non invasive monitoring.
MATERIAL AND METHODS. This study is a multicentric randomized controlled trial comparing two groups of patients undergoing single or dual kidney transplantation from deceased donors. All patients who will meet eligibility criteria will be randomised, using a computer generated randomization list, to either Group 1 (PGDT, intervention group) where minimally invasive continuous CI monitor (Edwards ClearSight) will be used to guide a goal directed fluid administration protocol, and Group 2 (control) managed according to local and international best practice guidelines using standard hemodynamic monitoring.
STUDY DESIGN. The study protocol will be developed across the intraoperative and postoperative periods. In the intraoperative phase all standard monitored parameters such as EKG, SpO2 (oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry), airway pressure etc. will be the same for both groups. Where ClearSight minimally invasive monitoring will be used (Group 1), hemodynamic optimization goals will be as follows: CI ≥ 2.5 L/min/m2 and the SVV <10%. Sequential interventions used to reach the hemodynamic goals are regulated by a flow-chart provided in the study protocol. In Group 2 conventional static hemodynamic parameters (CVP, IBP) are evaluated to achieve an intraoperative MAP ≥ 70 mmHg with corrective actions (fluids, vasoactive agents) implemented according to the recommendations of good clinical practice and international guidelines. Both groups will receive standard induction immunosuppression according to our centre's practice as well as corticosteroid bolus (or two boluses if a dual kidney transplant was performed) before graft reperfusion. In the postoperative period all patients will be transferred to a dedicated post-surgical intensive care unit. The same standardized fluid therapy regimen will be adopted across both groups. Patient data will be prospectively collected, according to the study protocol, by designated personnel using a digital case report form.
SAMPLE SIZE CALCULATION AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS. The investigators speculate that in order to detect a minimum reduction in the primary outcome of at least 18%, considering a power of 80% and a type I error of 5%, a total of 200 patients would be needed (100 per group). All results will be summarized in the text as means, unless differently stated each time with measures of variability expressed using mean and standard deviation. When reporting medians, measures of variability will be indicated as interquartile range, minimum value, and maximum value. Difference between population means will be obtained using the 2-sample t test; difference between population proportions will be obtained with the chi-square test and Fisher's exact test. Graft survival will be calculated from the date of kidney transplant to the date of last follow-up evaluation, graft loss, or patient death. P-values below or equal to 0.05 are considered as statistically significant.
- Conditions
- Kidney Transplant, Complications
- Being tested
- PGDT
- Keywords
- Perioperative Goal Directed Therapy, Kidney Transplant
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
PGDTProcedure or surgery
The minimally invasive continuous CI monitor (Edwards ClearSight) was used to guide an optimization of preload with the use of algorithms based on fluids, inotropes and/or vasopressors to achieve a certain goal in medium arterial pressure (MAP), cardiac index (CI) and stroke volume variation (SVV)
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Group 1 (PGDT) | Experimental | Group 1(PGDT, intervention group) where minimally invasive continuous CI monitor (Edwards ClearSight) was used to guide a goal directed fluid administration protocol Receives: Procedure: PGDT |
| Group 2 (control) | No intervention | Group 2 (control) managed according to local and international best practice guidelines using standard hemodynamic monitoring |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Hospital stay
The primary study outcome was to investigate whether the adoption of a PGDT protocol would reduce overall hospital stay.
Measured: Through study completion, an average of 6 months
Secondary outcomes (3)
Incidence of postoperative surgical and medical complications
Secondary endpoint was the detection of any significant change in the incidence of postoperative surgical (Clavien-Dindo Classification≥ 3) and medical (pulmonary or cardiovascular) complications
Measured: Through study completion, an average of 6 months
Incidence of delayed graft function and graft loss
Secondary endpoint was the detection of any significant change in the incidence of delayed graft function and graft loss
Measured: Through study completion, an average of 6 months
ICU stay
Secondary endpoint was the detection of any significant change in the ICU length of stay
Measured: Through study completion, an average of 6 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted5 Sep 2021
- Study start1 Jan 2018
- Primary completion30 Nov 2022
- Study completion30 Nov 2023
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (15)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Kidney TransplantStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di BolognaThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Screening
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- All patients who met eligibility criteria were randomised, using a computer generated randomization list, to either Group 1 (PGDT, intervention group) where minimally invasive continuous CI monitor (Edwards ClearSight) was used to guide a goal directed fluid administration protocol, and Group 2 (control) managed according to local and international best practice guidelines using standard hemodynamic monitoring.
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 181 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Cristiana Laici, MD, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna
- Investigators
- Antonio Siniscalchi, MD, Principal investigator, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Italy
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05035537
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- PGDT2017
- Acronym
- PGDT
- Status last verified
- Sep 2024
- First submitted
- 29 Aug 2021
- Last updated
- 19 Sep 2024
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Biancofiore G, Cecconi M, Rocca GD. A web-based Italian survey of current trends, habits and beliefs in hemodynamic monitoring and management. J Clin Monit Comput. 2015 Oct;29(5):635-42. doi: 10.1007/s10877-014-9646-7. Epub 2014 Dec 12.
PubMed 25500761Perilli V, Aceto P, Sacco T, Modesti C, Ciocchetti P, Vitale F, Russo A, Fasano G, Dottorelli A, Sollazzi L. Anaesthesiological strategies to improve outcome in liver transplantation recipients. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2016 Jul;20(15):3172-7.
PubMed 27466988Vincent JL, Rhodes A, Perel A, Martin GS, Della Rocca G, Vallet B, Pinsky MR, Hofer CK, Teboul JL, de Boode WP, Scolletta S, Vieillard-Baron A, De Backer D, Walley KR, Maggiorini M, Singer M. Clinical review: Update on hemodynamic monitoring--a consensus of 16. Crit Care. 2011 Aug 18;15(4):229. doi: 10.1186/cc10291.
PubMed 21884645Lobo SM, Rezende E, Knibel MF, Silva NB, Paramo JA, Nacul FE, Mendes CL, Assuncao M, Costa RC, Grion CC, Pinto SF, Mello PM, Maia MO, Duarte PA, Gutierrez F, Silva JM Jr, Lopes MR, Cordeiro JA, Mellot C. Early determinants of death due to multiple organ failure after noncardiac surgery in high-risk patients. Anesth Analg. 2011 Apr;112(4):877-83. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181e2bf8e. Epub 2010 Jun 8.
PubMed 20530615Pearse RM, Harrison DA, James P, Watson D, Hinds C, Rhodes A, Grounds RM, Bennett ED. Identification and characterisation of the high-risk surgical population in the United Kingdom. Crit Care. 2006;10(3):R81. doi: 10.1186/cc4928. Epub 2006 Jun 2.
PubMed 16749940Jhanji S, Thomas B, Ely A, Watson D, Hinds CJ, Pearse RM. Mortality and utilisation of critical care resources amongst high-risk surgical patients in a large NHS trust. Anaesthesia. 2008 Jul;63(7):695-700. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05560.x. Epub 2008 May 16.
PubMed 18489613Fischer MO, Fiant AL, Boutros M, Flais F, Filipov T, Debroczi S, Pasqualini L, Rhanem T, Gerard JL, Guittet L, Hanouz JL, Alves A, Parienti JJ; PANEX3 study group. Perioperative hemodynamic optimization using the photoplethysmography in colorectal surgery (the PANEX3 trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2016 Mar 22;17:159. doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1278-4.
PubMed 27004412Hamilton MA, Cecconi M, Rhodes A. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the use of preemptive hemodynamic intervention to improve postoperative outcomes in moderate and high-risk surgical patients. Anesth Analg. 2011 Jun;112(6):1392-402. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181eeaae5. Epub 2010 Oct 21.
PubMed 20966436Gomez-Izquierdo JC, Feldman LS, Carli F, Baldini G. Meta-analysis of the effect of goal-directed therapy on bowel function after abdominal surgery. Br J Surg. 2015 May;102(6):577-89. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9747. Epub 2015 Mar 11.
PubMed 25759947Walsh SR, Tang T, Bass S, Gaunt ME. Doppler-guided intra-operative fluid management during major abdominal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Clin Pract. 2008 Mar;62(3):466-70. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2007.01516.x. Epub 2007 Nov 21.
PubMed 18031528Ameloot K, Palmers PJ, Malbrain ML. The accuracy of noninvasive cardiac output and pressure measurements with finger cuff: a concise review. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2015 Jun;21(3):232-9. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000000198.
PubMed 25922896Scolletta S, Franchi F, Romagnoli S, Carla R, Donati A, Fabbri LP, Forfori F, Alonso-Inigo JM, Laviola S, Mangani V, Maj G, Martinelli G, Mirabella L, Morelli A, Persona P, Payen D; Pulse wave analysis Cardiac Output validation (PulseCOval) Group. Comparison Between Doppler-Echocardiography and Uncalibrated Pulse Contour Method for Cardiac Output Measurement: A Multicenter Observational Study. Crit Care Med. 2016 Jul;44(7):1370-9. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001663.
PubMed 27097293Sangkum L, Liu GL, Yu L, Yan H, Kaye AD, Liu H. Minimally invasive or noninvasive cardiac output measurement: an update. J Anesth. 2016 Jun;30(3):461-80. doi: 10.1007/s00540-016-2154-9. Epub 2016 Mar 9.
PubMed 26961819van der Spoel AG, Voogel AJ, Folkers A, Boer C, Bouwman RA. Comparison of noninvasive continuous arterial waveform analysis (Nexfin) with transthoracic Doppler echocardiography for monitoring of cardiac output. J Clin Anesth. 2012 Jun;24(4):304-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2011.09.008.
PubMed 22608585Stover JF, Stocker R, Lenherr R, Neff TA, Cottini SR, Zoller B, Bechir M. Noninvasive cardiac output and blood pressure monitoring cannot replace an invasive monitoring system in critically ill patients. BMC Anesthesiol. 2009 Oct 12;9:6. doi: 10.1186/1471-2253-9-6.
PubMed 19821993
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 19 Sep 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Hemodynamic Optimization with Perioperative Gold Directed Therapy (PGDT) in Kidney Transplant
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05035537
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- PGDT / PGDT2017
- Conditions
- Kidney Transplant, Complications
- Keywords
- Perioperative Goal Directed Therapy, Kidney Transplant
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 181 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di BolognaUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Jan 2018 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Nov 2022 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Nov 2023 (actual)
- First posted
- 5 Sep 2021 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This study is a multicentric randomized controlled trial comparing two groups of patients undergoing single or dual kidney transplantation from deceased donors. To reduce perioperative complications optimal fluid management is essential in patients undergoing kidney transplantation. Heart rate, Medium Arterial Pressure (MAP), Central Venous Pressure (CVP), and urine output have been proposed in the literature to guide perioperative fluid therapy. These criteria are routinely applied in clinical practice; however these criteria have shown low sensitivity and poor predictive of postoperative complication, especially if used alone. The traditional approach in renal transplantation is the volume infusion guided whit CVP to the point of no further fluid responsiveness, but this can lead to excess fluid which can damage the endothelial glycocalyx and lead to organ failure for a fluid shift into the interstitial space.
As a way to reduce postoperative complications in surgical patients, in recent years, several studies have examined Perioperative Goal Directed Therapy (PGDT) as fluid administration guided by optimization of preload with the use of algorithms based on fluids, inotropes and/or vasopressors to achieve a certain goal in stroke volume (SV), cardiac index (CI), or oxygen delivery (DO2). However results regarding the potential role of PGDT cannot be considered definitive, because the various studies on the subject have not all conformed to the same methods and have not uniformly applied the same measurements, so their results regarding the potential role of PGDT cannot be considered definitive.
The aim of this work is to compare the effects of PGDT with conventional fluid therapy in patients undergoing kidney transplantation achievable through implementation of the non invasive monitoring.
Detailed description
To reduce perioperative complications optimal fluid management is essential in patients undergoing kidney transplantation. Heart rate, Medium Arterial Pressure (MAP), Central Venous Pressure (CVP), and urine output have been proposed in the literature to guide perioperative fluid therapy. These criteria are routinely applied in clinical practice; however these criteria have shown low sensitivity and poor predictive of postoperative complication, especially if used alone. The traditional approach in renal transplantation is the volume infusion guided whit CVP to the point of no further fluid responsiveness, but this can lead to excess fluid which can damage the endothelial glycocalyx and lead to organ failure for a fluid shift into the interstitial space.
As a way to reduce postoperative complications in surgical patients, in recent years, several studies have examined Perioperative Goal Directed Therapy (PGDT) as fluid administration guided by optimization of preload with the use of algorithms based on fluids, inotropes and/or vasopressors to achieve a certain goal in stroke volume (SV), cardiac index (CI), or oxygen delivery (DO2). However results regarding the potential role of PGDT cannot be considered definitive, because the various studies on the subject have not all conformed to the same methods and have not uniformly applied the same measurements, so their results regarding the potential role of PGDT cannot be considered definitive.
The aim of this work is to compare the effects of PGDT with conventional fluid therapy in patients undergoing kidney transplantation achievable through implementation of the non invasive monitoring.
MATERIAL AND METHODS. This study is a multicentric randomized controlled trial comparing two groups of patients undergoing single or dual kidney transplantation from deceased donors. All patients who will meet eligibility criteria will be randomised, using a computer generated randomization list, to either Group 1 (PGDT, intervention group) where minimally invasive continuous CI monitor (Edwards ClearSight) will be used to guide a goal directed fluid administration protocol, and Group 2 (control) managed according to local and international best practice guidelines using standard hemodynamic monitoring.
STUDY DESIGN. The study protocol will be developed across the intraoperative and postoperative periods. In the intraoperative phase all standard monitored parameters such as EKG, SpO2 (oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry), airway pressure etc. will be the same for both groups. Where ClearSight minimally invasive monitoring will be used (Group 1), hemodynamic optimization goals will be as follows: CI ≥ 2.5 L/min/m2 and the SVV <10%. Sequential interventions used to reach the hemodynamic goals are regulated by a flow-chart provided in the study protocol. In Group 2 conventional static hemodynamic parameters (CVP, IBP) are evaluated to achieve an intraoperative MAP ≥ 70 mmHg with corrective actions (fluids, vasoactive agents) implemented according to the recommendations of good clinical practice and international guidelines. Both groups will receive standard induction immunosuppression according to our centre's practice as well as corticosteroid bolus (or two boluses if a dual kidney transplant was performed) before graft reperfusion. In the postoperative period all patients will be transferred to a dedicated post-surgical intensive care unit. The same standardized fluid therapy regimen will be adopted across both groups. Patient data will be prospectively collected, according to the study protocol, by designated personnel using a digital case report form.
SAMPLE SIZE CALCULATION AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS. The investigators speculate that in order to detect a minimum reduction in the primary outcome of at least 18%, considering a power of 80% and a type I error of 5%, a total of 200 patients would be needed (100 per group). All results will be summarized in the text as means, unless differently stated each time with measures of variability expressed using mean and standard deviation. When reporting medians, measures of variability will be indicated as interquartile range, minimum value, and maximum value. Difference between population means will be obtained using the 2-sample t test; difference between population proportions will be obtained with the chi-square test and Fisher's exact test. Graft survival will be calculated from the date of kidney transplant to the date of last follow-up evaluation, graft loss, or patient death. P-values below or equal to 0.05 are considered as statistically significant.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Screening
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- All patients who met eligibility criteria were randomised, using a computer generated randomization list, to either Group 1 (PGDT, intervention group) where minimally invasive continuous CI monitor (Edwards ClearSight) was used to guide a goal directed fluid administration protocol, and Group 2 (control) managed according to local and international best practice guidelines using standard hemodynamic monitoring.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Group 1 (PGDT) | Experimental | Procedure: PGDTGroup 1(PGDT, intervention group) where minimally invasive continuous CI monitor (Edwards ClearSight) was used to guide a goal directed fluid administration protocol |
| Group 2 (control) | No intervention | –Group 2 (control) managed according to local and international best practice guidelines using standard hemodynamic monitoring |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- age > 18 years,
- first single- or dual-kidney transplant from a deceased donor,
- absence of atrial fibrillation or other severe arrythmia,
- ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) class III-IV,
- presence of written expression of consent.
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- patients receiving a retransplant,
- patients receiving a combined liver-kidney transplant,
- patients receiving a transplant from a living donor .
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| PGDTThe minimally invasive continuous CI monitor (Edwards ClearSight) was used to guide an optimization of preload with the use of algorithms based on fluids, inotropes and/or vasopressors to achieve a certain goal in medium arterial pressure (MAP), cardiac index (CI) and stroke volume variation (SVV) | Procedure or surgery | Group 1 (PGDT) |
Primary outcome
Hospital stay
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 6 months
The primary study outcome was to investigate whether the adoption of a PGDT protocol would reduce overall hospital stay.
3 secondary outcomes
Incidence of postoperative surgical and medical complications
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 6 months
Incidence of delayed graft function and graft loss
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 6 months
ICU stay
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 6 months
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 19 Sep 2024.
- Background: PubMed 25500761Biancofiore G, Cecconi M, Rocca GD. A web-based Italian survey of current trends, habits and beliefs in hemodynamic monitoring and management. J Clin Monit Comput. 2015 Oct;29(5):635-42. doi: 10.1007/s10877-014-9646-7. Epub 2014 Dec 12.
- Background: PubMed 27466988Perilli V, Aceto P, Sacco T, Modesti C, Ciocchetti P, Vitale F, Russo A, Fasano G, Dottorelli A, Sollazzi L. Anaesthesiological strategies to improve outcome in liver transplantation recipients. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2016 Jul;20(15):3172-7.
- Background: PubMed 21884645Vincent JL, Rhodes A, Perel A, Martin GS, Della Rocca G, Vallet B, Pinsky MR, Hofer CK, Teboul JL, de Boode WP, Scolletta S, Vieillard-Baron A, De Backer D, Walley KR, Maggiorini M, Singer M. Clinical review: Update on hemodynamic monitoring--a consensus of 16. Crit Care. 2011 Aug 18;15(4):229. doi: 10.1186/cc10291.
- Background: PubMed 20530615Lobo SM, Rezende E, Knibel MF, Silva NB, Paramo JA, Nacul FE, Mendes CL, Assuncao M, Costa RC, Grion CC, Pinto SF, Mello PM, Maia MO, Duarte PA, Gutierrez F, Silva JM Jr, Lopes MR, Cordeiro JA, Mellot C. Early determinants of death due to multiple organ failure after noncardiac surgery in high-risk patients. Anesth Analg. 2011 Apr;112(4):877-83. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181e2bf8e. Epub 2010 Jun 8.
- Background: PubMed 16749940Pearse RM, Harrison DA, James P, Watson D, Hinds C, Rhodes A, Grounds RM, Bennett ED. Identification and characterisation of the high-risk surgical population in the United Kingdom. Crit Care. 2006;10(3):R81. doi: 10.1186/cc4928. Epub 2006 Jun 2.
- Background: PubMed 18489613Jhanji S, Thomas B, Ely A, Watson D, Hinds CJ, Pearse RM. Mortality and utilisation of critical care resources amongst high-risk surgical patients in a large NHS trust. Anaesthesia. 2008 Jul;63(7):695-700. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05560.x. Epub 2008 May 16.
- Background: PubMed 27004412Fischer MO, Fiant AL, Boutros M, Flais F, Filipov T, Debroczi S, Pasqualini L, Rhanem T, Gerard JL, Guittet L, Hanouz JL, Alves A, Parienti JJ; PANEX3 study group. Perioperative hemodynamic optimization using the photoplethysmography in colorectal surgery (the PANEX3 trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2016 Mar 22;17:159. doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1278-4.
- Background: PubMed 20966436Hamilton MA, Cecconi M, Rhodes A. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the use of preemptive hemodynamic intervention to improve postoperative outcomes in moderate and high-risk surgical patients. Anesth Analg. 2011 Jun;112(6):1392-402. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181eeaae5. Epub 2010 Oct 21.
- Background: PubMed 25759947Gomez-Izquierdo JC, Feldman LS, Carli F, Baldini G. Meta-analysis of the effect of goal-directed therapy on bowel function after abdominal surgery. Br J Surg. 2015 May;102(6):577-89. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9747. Epub 2015 Mar 11.
- Background: PubMed 18031528Walsh SR, Tang T, Bass S, Gaunt ME. Doppler-guided intra-operative fluid management during major abdominal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Clin Pract. 2008 Mar;62(3):466-70. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2007.01516.x. Epub 2007 Nov 21.
- Background: PubMed 25922896Ameloot K, Palmers PJ, Malbrain ML. The accuracy of noninvasive cardiac output and pressure measurements with finger cuff: a concise review. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2015 Jun;21(3):232-9. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000000198.
- Background: PubMed 27097293Scolletta S, Franchi F, Romagnoli S, Carla R, Donati A, Fabbri LP, Forfori F, Alonso-Inigo JM, Laviola S, Mangani V, Maj G, Martinelli G, Mirabella L, Morelli A, Persona P, Payen D; Pulse wave analysis Cardiac Output validation (PulseCOval) Group. Comparison Between Doppler-Echocardiography and Uncalibrated Pulse Contour Method for Cardiac Output Measurement: A Multicenter Observational Study. Crit Care Med. 2016 Jul;44(7):1370-9. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001663.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Kidney Transplant
Active, not recruitingPhase 2
MT2013-31: Allo HCT for Metabolic Disorders and Severe Osteopetrosis
Mucopolysaccharidosis Disorders, Hurler Syndrome
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Blood Biomarkers in Pediatric Kidney Transplant Recipients
Rejection of Kidney Allograft
Not yet recruiting
ASSISTED FLUID MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN KIDENY TRANSPLANTATION
Kidney Transplant
RecruitingPhase 1/2
Phase I/II Study of AD-PluReceptor Plus Tafasitamab-cxix and Lymphodepleting Chemotherapy in Patients With Autoimmune Disorders
Autoimmune Disorders, Systemic Sclerosis
RecruitingPhase 2
A Study Comparing Siplizumab With Rabbit Anti-Thymocyte Globulin to Help the Body Accept a Kidney Transplant
Renal Transplant Failure and Rejection
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Antonio Siniscalchi, MD principal investigator
IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Italy
2 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing PGDT in people with Kidney Transplant and Complications, run by IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna at 2 sites in Italy.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 19 Sep 2024. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 2 sites in Italy. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Hospital stay (time frame: Through study completion, an average of 6 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05035537, which also lists 15 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 19 Sep 2024.