Planned relaparotomy versus relaparotomy on demand in abdominal sepsis: a randomised, multi-center, clinical trial

ISRCTN ISRCTN51729393
DOI https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN51729393
Protocol serial number 948-02-028
Sponsor Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) (The Netherlands)
Funder The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) (The Netherlands) - Health Care Efficiency Research programme
Submission date
10/02/2004
Registration date
30/03/2004
Last edited
03/01/2012
Recruitment status
No longer recruiting
Overall study status
Completed
Condition category
Digestive System
Prospectively registered
Protocol
Statistical analysis plan
Results
Individual participant data

Plain English summary of protocol

Not provided at time of registration

Contact information

Mrs Marja A. Boermeester
Scientific

Academic Medical Center
Department of Surgery (room G4-127)
Gastrointestinal Surgery (GI infection)
Meibergdreef 9
Amsterdam
1105 AZ
Netherlands

Email m.a.boermeester@amc.uva.nl

Study information

Primary study designInterventional
Study designRandomised controlled trial
Secondary study designRandomised controlled trial
Scientific title
Study acronymRELAP trial
Study objectivesRelaparotomy on demand strategy in patients with secondary peritonitis reduces the risk of 180-day poor outcome (death or readmission/surgical intervention for morbidity in survivors) compared to a strategy with planned relaparotomy.
Ethics approval(s)Approved by the Medical Ethics Committee, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands and by the Dutch Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (Dutch initials: CCMO).
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studiedSecondary peritonitis
InterventionPlanned relaparotomy versus relaparotomy on demand
Intervention typeOther
Primary outcome measure(s)

‘Poor outcome’ defined as death (all-cause mortality) or, in survivors, readmission or surgical intervention for disease-related morbidity (i.e., morbidity related to abdominal sepsis and its treatment) during a 180-day period after index laparotomy.

Key secondary outcome measure(s)

1. Duration of mechanical ventilation, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and hospital stay, days outside the hospital in one year after index surgery, long-term morbidity (one year), quality of life, and Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs).
2. Medical and indirect costs comparing absolute volumes of resource utilization.

Completion date31/08/2006

Eligibility

Participant type(s)Patient
Age groupAdult
Lower age limit18 Years
SexNot Specified
Target sample size at registration222
Key inclusion criteria1. Patients with secondary peritonitis
2. Between 18 and 80 years
3. An Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score more than 10 (worst score in the first 24 hours of diagnosis)

Participating centres:
1. Academic Medical Center Amsterdam
2. University Medical Center Utrecht
3. Gelre Hospital Apeldoorn
4. Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis (OLVG) Amsterdam
5. St Lucas Andreas Hospital Amsterdam
6. Isala Klinieken Zwolle
7. A. Schweitzer Hospital Dordrecht
8. Bosch Medisch Centrum Den Bosch
9. Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis Delft
Key exclusion criteria1. Age less than 18 or more than 80 years
2. Abdominal infection due to perforation after endoscopy operated within 24 hours
3. Abdominal infection due to an indwelling dialysis (Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis [CAPD]) catheter
4. Acute pancreatitis
5. Index laparotomy for peritonitis in another (referring, non-participating) hospital
6. Expected survival less than six months due to disseminated malignancy
7. Brain damage due to trauma or anoxia
Date of first enrolment01/12/2001
Date of final enrolment31/08/2006

Locations

Countries of recruitment

  • Netherlands

Study participating centre

Academic Medical Center
Amsterdam
1105 AZ
Netherlands

Results and Publications

Individual participant data (IPD) Intention to shareNo
IPD sharing plan summaryNot provided at time of registration
IPD sharing plan

Study outputs

Output type Details Date created Date added Peer reviewed? Patient-facing?
Results article 1.Results 22/08/2007 Yes No
Results article results 23/12/2011 Yes No