Clinical Trial Details
— Status: Completed
Administrative data
NCT number |
NCT00202826 |
Other study ID # |
2003-181 |
Secondary ID |
|
Status |
Completed |
Phase |
Phase 3
|
First received |
|
Last updated |
|
Start date |
November 2003 |
Est. completion date |
March 2004 |
Study information
Verified date |
January 2009 |
Source |
Spectrum Health Hospitals |
Contact |
n/a |
Is FDA regulated |
No |
Health authority |
|
Study type |
Interventional
|
Clinical Trial Summary
The purpose of this study is to determine the best treatment for children with a fluid
collection in the chest associated with an underlying pneumonia. Researchers generally agree
that a child with a large fluid collection in the chest need to have the fluid drained in
addition to anitbiotics. There have been many treatments studied in children that have been
shown to be effective and safe, but the treatments have never been compared to each other in
a randomized controlled study.
The optimal treatment of pediatric parapneumonic effusions remains controversial. The
objective of this study is to compare the use of conventional management (antibiotics with
thoracostomy tube placement) with primary thorascopic drainage (see protocol). Our hypothesis
is that pediatric patients with parapneumonic effusion, regardless of pleural fluid
composition and loculations, have decreased morbidity when treated with early thoroscopic
adhesiolysis (VATS) compared with conservative treatment.
Description:
The ultimate objective of this study is to rationalize treatment decisions. It is our hope
that this pilot study will provide the basis for further randomized prospective studies. The
expected benefit is that the current treatment and outcome of pediatric parapneumonic
effusions will be determined. Insights into the therapy that results in the least morbidity,
hospital days, (and therefore cost) will be elucidated. If our hypothesis is valid, then a
more aggressive surgical approach to the treatment of a parapneumonic effusion may be
warranted. If the hypothesis is not valid, then the appropriate treatment for a parapneumonic
effusion, irrespective of institution and personal opinion, should become more apparent.