Rationale and design of the colchicine for prevention of the post-pericardiotomy syndrome and post-operative atrial fibrillation (COPPS-2 trial): A randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter study on the use of colchicine for the primary prevention of the postpericardiotomy syndrome, postoperative effusions, and postoperative atrial fibrillation
Imazio M.,Maria Vittoria Hospital |
Belli R.,Maria Vittoria Hospital |
Brucato A.,Ospedali Riuniti |
Ferrazzi P.,Ospedali Riuniti |
And 15 more authors.
American Heart Journal | Year: 2013
Background The efficacy and safety of colchicine for the primary prevention of the postpericardiotomy syndrome (PPS), postoperative effusions, and postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) remain uncertain. Although preliminary data from a single trial of colchicine given for 1 month postoperatively (COPPS trial) were promising, the results have not been confirmed in a large, multicenter trial. Moreover, in the COPPS trial, colchicine was given 3 days postoperatively. Methods The COPPS-2 study is a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial. Forty-eight to 72 hours before planned cardiac surgery, 360 patients, 180 in each treatment arm, will be randomized to receive placebo or colchicine without a loading dose (0.5 mg twice a day for 1 month in patients weighing ≥70 kg and 0.5 mg once for patients weighing <70 kg or intolerant to the highest dose). The primary efficacy end point is the incidence of PPS, postoperative effusions, and POAF at 3 months after surgery. Secondary end points are the incidence of cardiac tamponade or need for pericardiocentesis or thoracentesis, PPS recurrence, disease-related admissions, stroke, and overall mortality. Conclusions The COPPS-2 trial will evaluate the use of colchicine for the primary prevention of PPS, postoperative effusions, and POAF, potentially providing stronger evidence to support the use of preoperative colchicine without a loading dose to prevent several postoperative complications. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01552187. © 2013 Mosby, Inc.
Salutari V.,Cattolica University |
Marchetti C.,University of Rome La Sapienza |
Pisano C.,Instituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione G Pascale Irccs |
Di Napoli M.,Instituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione G Pascale Irccs |
And 3 more authors.
Anti-Cancer Drugs | Year: 2015
The European Medicines Agency strongly recommends administration of trabectedin through a central venous catheter (CVC) to minimize the risk of extravasation. However, CVCs place patients at risk of catheter-related complications and have a significant budgetary impact for oncology departments. The most frequently used CVCs are subcutaneously implanted PORT-chamber catheters (PORTs); peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) are relatively new. We reviewed data of trabectedin-treated patients to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of the use of PORTs and PICCs in six Italian centres. Data on 102 trabectedin-treated patients (20 with sarcoma, 80 with ovarian cancer and two with cervical cancer) were evaluated. Forty-five patients received trabectedin by a PICC, inserted by trained nurses using an ultrasound-guided technique at the bedside, whereas 57 patients received trabectedin infusion by a PORT, requiring a day surgery procedure in the hospital by a surgeon. Device dislocation and infections were reported in four patients, equally distributed between PORT or PICC users. Thrombosis occurred in a single patient with a PORT. Complications requiring devices removal were not reported during any of the 509 cycles of therapy (median 5; range 1-20). PICC misplacement or early malfunctions were not reported during trabectedin infusion. The cost-efficiency ratio favours PORT over PICC only when the device is used for more than 1 year. Our data suggest that trabectedin infusion by PICC is safe and well accepted, with a preferable cost-efficiency ratio compared with PORT in patients requiring short-term use of the device (≤1 year). Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.