There are about 8563 clinical studies being (or have been) conducted in Sweden. The country of the clinical trial is determined by the location of where the clinical research is being studied. Most studies are often held in multiple locations & countries.
The purpose of this study was to examine how well two medicines (solifenacin succinate and mirabegron) combined work compared to each medicine alone in the treatment of bladder problems.
This is a single-center, open-label, randomized controlled trial. Patients scheduled for aortic valve replacement (AVR) at Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm, Sweden will be eligible. Forty patients will be randomly assigned to either minimally invasive (20 patients) or conventional AVR (20 patients). CE-marked and FDA-approved mechanical and bioprosthetic aortic valves (conventional stented or sutureless bioprostheses) will be implanted. Transthoracic echocardiography will be performed before surgery, and at day 1, 4, and 40. Echocardiographic parameters as well as preoperative clinical characteristics and postoperative clinical outcomes will be registered. Routine blood sampling will be performed pre- and postoperatively. All available data will be collected prospectively. Informed consent will be obtained from patients meeting the inclusion criteria before the initiation of any study-specific procedures.
This study explores the routines of registration of surgical site infections (SSI) at different surgical centers in Sweden. It explores the sensitivity and specificity of the registration routines of SSI are at Halmstad County Hospital, Sweden.
As of today there is very limited scientific knowledge in whicj of the two vascular access devices (PICC-line or venous ports) that offers the lowest complicationrates in cancerpatients. The study group wants to clearify this unsolved matter by comparing the two systems. Our primary endpoint is the presens of catheter related venous thrombosis. We are also looking at all catheter related complications and patient satisfaction.
This study will explore the relationship of different DEB025 doses in combination with RBV to pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic (i.e. viral load reduction) and safety profiles in chronic hepatitis C GT 2 and 3 treatment naïve patients.
The primary endpoint in this study is to investigate if there is a difference in overall survival in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer, randomized to either radiotherapy and cetuximab or radiotherapy and cisplatin. A second randomization is performed in patients with T3-T4 tumors; allocated radiotherapy either 68.0 Gy or 73.1 Gy.
This study is to determine the efficacy of momelotinib (MMB) versus ruxolitinib (RUX) in participants with primary myelofibrosis (PMF) or post-polycythemia vera or post-essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis (post-PV/ET MF) who have not yet received treatment with a Janus kinase inhibitor (JAK inhibitor). Participants will be randomized to receive either MMB or ruxolitinib for 24 weeks during a double-blind treatment phase, after which they will be eligible to receive open-label MMB for up to an additional 216 weeks. After discontinuation of study medication, assessments will continue for 12 additional weeks, after which participants will be contacted for survival follow-up approximately every 6 months for up to 5 years from the date of enrollment or until study termination. For those participants planning to continue treatment with MMB following the end of the study, the Early Study Drug Discontinuation (ESDD), 30-day, 12-Week, and survival follow-up visits are not required.
The objective of the trial is to compare the lung function profile of once daily treatment with tiotropium+olodaterol FDC [2.5/ 5µg and 5/ 5µg] delivered by the RESPIMAT with the lung function profile of twice daily treatment with fluticasone propionate+salmeterol FDC [250/50µg and 500/50µg] delivered by the Accuhaler® after 6 weeks of treatment.
The investigation is a Post Marketing Follow-Up Study for the Avance Foam Abdominal Dressing Kit conducted as part of Mölnlycke Health Care's quality system. The primary objective is to evaluate the dressing kit as part of a negative pressure system. The secondary objectives are to collect and evaluate safety data, performance data and information on technical complications.
Background: Every year 30,000 Danish patients are admitted to Intensive Care Units (ICU), accounting for 2-3% of all patients in hospital and 30% of the yearly hospital expenditure. The mortality in the ICU is 12.7 % and the 30-day mortality is 21.2 % according to the national Danish Intensive Care Database. Through many years, the standard care has been to use continuous sedation of critically ill patients during me-chanical ventilation. However, recent research indicates that it is beneficial to reduce the sedation level in these patients. A randomised trial found that continuous sedation with a daily wake-up trial compared to continuous sedation reduced the time on me-chanical ventilation and the length of stay in the intensive care unit. Further, a ran-domised trial comparing continuous sedation with a daily wake-up trial to no sedation found that patients in the non-sedated group needed mechanical ventilation for a shorter time and had a shorter length of stay in the ICU and in the hospital. The trial also indicated a beneficial effect on mortality, however the trial was not a priori de-signed or powered with respect to mortality. No randomised trial has been published comparing sedation with no sedation, a priori powered to have all-cause mortality as primary outcome. Objective: To assess the benefits and harms of non-sedation versus sedation with a daily wake-up trial in critically ill patients in ICU. Design: The NONSEDA trial is an investigator-initiated, randomised, clinical, parallel-group, multinational, superiority trial designed to include 700 patients from at least six ICUs in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Inclusion criteria: Mechanically ventilated patients with expected duration of me-chanical ventilation > 24 hours. Exclusion criteria: non-intubated patients, patients with severe head trauma, coma at admission or status epilepticus, patients treated with therapeutic hypothermia, patients with PaO2/FiO2<9 where sedation might be necessary to ensure sufficient oxygenation or place the patient in prone position. Experimental intervention: Non-sedation supplemented with pain management during mechanical ventilation. Control intervention: Sedation with a daily wake-up trial. The primary hypothesis is that non-sedation compared to sedation and a daily wake-up trial will reduce mortality. The secondary hypotheses are that non-sedation compared to sedation and a daily wake-up trial will: - Reduce the incidence of a composite outcome of death, acute myocardial in-farction (AMI), stroke, pulmonary embolism and other thromboembolic events. - Reduce the number of organ failures. - Increase the days alive without mechanical ventilation. - Increase the days alive outside the ICU. - Increase the days alive outside the hospital. Outcomes: The primary outcome is all-cause mortality at 90 days. Secondary out-comes are time to death in the trial period, the frequency of the trombo-embolic com-plications, acute renal failure, days alive without mechanical ventilation, days alive outside the ICU and hospital. Explorative outcomes are mortality at 28 days, organ failure and coma-free, delirium-free days. Trial size: The investigators will include 700 participants (2 x 350) in order to detect or reject 25% relative risk reduction in mortality with a type I error risk of 5% and a type II error risk of 20% (power at 80%).