Loading
Life sciences · Interventional Study
ClinicalTrials.gov · October 14, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Interventional Study.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Registry record from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02846337). This is a study registration, not published results. Lead sponsor: Hospices Civils de Lyon. Recruitment status: COMPLETED. Phase: NA. Study type: INTERVENTIONAL. Enrollment: 108 participants (ACTUAL). Conditions: Cardio-renal Syndrome. Interventions: PROCEDURE: ULTRAFILTRATION; PROCEDURE: ENHANCED MEDICAL TREATMENT. Primary outcome measures: death and/or unscheduled hospitalization , up to 12 months post-randomization. Brief summary: Type 2 cardio renal syndrome is defined by the occurrence or the exacerbation of a kidney failure induced by a chronic heart failure. Sodium overload is one of the main causes leading to the occurrence or the exacerbation of this syndrome. Some patients have a massive sodium retention on which medications are not effective enough. These patients have no further therapeutic options because of the refractory congestion and a 3-months mortality rate around 15%, frequent rehospitalization (3-months rehospitalization rate at 71%) and an excessively impaired quality of life. For those refractory heart failure with cardio renal syndrome, nephrology departments resort to non-medication sodium extraction (hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, isolated ultrafiltration). Between 2002 and 2008, 927 French patients would have start dialysis in this situation. In 2013, 174 patients start dialysis in 97 dialysis centers. French National Authority of Health recently published new Good Practice Guidance thereupon, strengthened by the increasing number of publications and the widespread use of this technique. There is therefore a consensus among professionals about the benefits of such a technique in those indications. However, bibliographical data are not strong enough to support a strong level of evidence. None of foresight strategies have been compared to others in a proper randomized controlled trial, and there is no clue about any suspected superiority from one strategy to another. So far, the investigators propound invasive, expensive and not validated techniques to patients with functional and vital prognosis altered. The investigators think it's essential to prove the efficacy of such an approach. They wish to quantify those techniques impact on rehospitalization, with a consideration for the potential survival impact. It seems unethical to evaluate separated techniques, taking in account that patients with severe heart failure will switch from one technique to another among their care. It is therefore crucial to validate benefits from an invasive procedure (hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, isolated ultrafiltration) compared to a medication-restricted care.