A study protocol for a randomised controlled trial evaluating the safety and efficiency of the YEARS algorithm versus computed tomography pulmonary angiography only for suspected acute pulmonary embolism in patients with cancer: the Hydra Study
Martens, E. S. L.; Akerboom, B.; Baumgartner, C.; Brouwer, R. E.; Cavallaro, C.; Coppens, M.; Costantino, G.; Couturaud, F.; D'Errico, A.; van Dooren, Y. P. A.; Gianni, F.; van der Griend, R.; Grootenboers, M. J. J. H.; Hugli, O.; van der Hulle, T.; Jaderi, Z.; Jimenez, D.; Kamphuisen, P. W.; Lanting, V. R.; Leentjens, J.; Maas, M. L.; Mahe, I.; van Meer, O. A.; van Mens, T. E.; Out, M.; Pola, R.; Pulver, D.; Raskin, J.; Righini, M.; Sprenger, R. A.; Stals, M. A. M.; Talerico, R.; Tritschler, T.; ten Wolde, M.; Huisman, M. V.; Klok, F. A.
Show abstract
BackgroundPulmonary embolism (PE) is frequently suspected in patients with cancer due to non-specific symptoms suggestive of PE and their inherent risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Commonly used clinical decision rules (CDRs) and D-dimer testing may be less reliable in this specific population. Due to the lack of guideline recommendations on the optimal diagnostic approach and the perceived futility of D-dimer in patients with cancer, clinicians often use computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) as a sole diagnostic test. This practice exposes patients to potentially unnecessary radiation and harm, and contributes to a significant burden on healthcare systems through inefficient resource allocation. The YEARS algorithm is an easy-to-use CDR that has been shown to safely exclude PE without the need for CTPA in a diverse population of patients with suspected PE. ObjectiveTo compare the safety and efficiency of the YEARS algorithm to the safety and efficiency of CTPA only in the diagnostic management of acute PE in cancer patients. Design and interventionsThe Hydra study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04657120) is an investigator-initiated, multicentre, multinational open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial with blinded adjudication of outcome events, comparing the YEARS algorithm with CTPA only in the diagnostic work-up of cancer patients with clinically suspected acute PE. Participants are randomised in a 1:1 ratio to each diagnostic strategy via a web-based system. The trial anticipates to include 1566 patients. ParticipantsConsecutive patients with active cancer who are hospitalized or present to the emergency department, outpatient clinic, or thrombosis clinic with clinically suspected PE and who are not receiving therapeutic anticoagulation or have an indication for anticoagulation therapy other than PE. Study outcomesThe primary safety outcome is the proportion of symptomatic and objectively proven fatal or non-fatal VTE (i.e., PE or deep vein thrombosis in the upper or lower extremities) or death with undetermined cause where acute PE could not be ruled out as contributing factor during three months follow-up in patients in whom PE was ruled out at initial testing. The primary efficiency outcome is the proportion of negative CTPA scans for PE, relative to the total number of CTPA scans performed at initial testing. ImplicationThis trial will provide pivotal data on the optimal diagnostic approach for suspected acute PE in patients with cancer. Strengths and limitations of this studyO_LIThe Hydra study is the first prospective, randomised trial comparing the safety and efficiency of the YEARS algorithm with CTPA only for suspected acute PE in patients with active cancer. C_LIO_LIThe enrolment of a large number of patients from multiple teaching and general hospitals across various clinical settings and countries enhances the generalisability of this study. C_LIO_LIThe randomised design and the vulnerable study population may render the study challenging. C_LI
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Does the elevated (thrombosis risk of males relative to females help account for the excess male mortality observed in Covid-19? An observational study 94%
- Incidence Of Venous Thrombotic Events And Events Of Special Interest In A Retrospective Cohort Of Commercially-Insured US Patients 94%
- CATALYST trial protocol: A multicentre, open-label, phase II, multi-arm trial for an early and accelerated evaluation of the potential treatments for COVID-19 in hospitalised adults 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Antithrombotic Therapy in COVID-19: Systematic Summary of Ongoing or Completed Randomized Trials 95%
- Comparative Effectiveness of Second-line Antihyperglycemic Agents for Cardiovascular Outcomes: A Large-scale, Multinational, Federated Analysis of the LEGEND-T2DM Study 91%
- Lipid-Modulating Agents for Prevention or Treatment of COVID-19 in Randomized Trials 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Standardized Data Elements for Patients with Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Consensus Report from the Pulmonary Embolism Research Collaborative 94%
- High-sensitivity cardiac troponin on presentation to rule out myocardial infarction: a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial 93%
- A multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial of high sensitivity cardiac troponin I-guided combination angiotensin receptor blockade and beta-blocker therapy to prevent anthracycline cardiotoxicity: the Cardiac CARE trial 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Novel Risk Assessment Model Predicts Major Bleeding Risk at Admission in Medical Inpatients 95%
- Genetic risk and incident venous thromboembolism in middle-aged and older adults following Covid-19 vaccination 92%
- Optimal adherence thresholds for oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation using machine learning and population administrative data 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Heparin for Moderately Ill Patients with Covid-19 96%
- Early initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation for prevention of COVID-19 mortality: a nationwide cohort study of hospitalized patients in the United States 95%
- Characterizing the incidence of adverse events of special interest for COVID-19 vaccines across eight countries: a multinational network cohort study 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.