Rijnstate

Rationale Midazolam is known for its safety, effectiveness for procedural sedation during gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy and is used as standard sedative by endoscopists worldwide. Remimazolam is a novel, recently approved sedative, with the potential to facilitate a faster (neuropsychiatric) recovery. Therefore, it may potentially enable earlier discharge and improvement of post-procedural memory compared to midazolam. Furthermore, remimazolam may enhance patient satisfaction.
Objective The investigators aim to compare the use of remimazolam and midazolam for sedation during diagnostic upper GI endoscopies in a randomized clinical trial.
Main trial endpoints Time to full alertness (time interval from the last dosage midazolam or remimazolam to the first of 3 consecutive MOAA/S scores of 5).
Secondary trial endpoints Interval between arrival in the recovery room and full alertness, patient satisfaction (based on questionnaire after discharge and after 1 day), duration of amnesia (based on memory test after 1 day), time interval between last dosage of sedative and readiness for discharge (first Aldrete score of at least 9), total dosage and number of boluses for adequate sedation, time interval between first dosage of sedative and start of the procedure, endoscopist satisfaction (scored 0-10 after the procedure).
Trial design Randomized, multicenter, double blind, clinical trial, which will take 2 days for study participants.
Trial population Adult patients scheduled for diagnostic upper GI endoscopy with sedation. The anticipated use of fentanyl or other opioids during endoscopy is an exclusion criterium (n=148 patients).
Interventions Participants will be randomly assigned to receive either remimazolam or midazolam as a sedative and will be followed up until one day after the procedure. One group will receive midazolam as a sedative, and another group will receive remimazolam as a sedative. Both agents will be administered in accordance with current guidelines. Vital signs, MOAA/S scores, and Aldrete scores will be monitored. Additionally, a memory test and a questionnaire will be administered to the participants.
Ethical considerations relating to the clinical trial including the expected benefit to the individual subject or group of patients represented by the trial subjects as well as the nature and extent of burden and risks This study aims to evaluate two procedures employed in regular daily care. Both sedatives used in this study are considered safe and effective for procedural sedation. Therefore, the investigators anticipate minimal risk for the participants involved in the study. Participants will not be subjected to any additional interventions or hospital visits apart from randomization, data collection, and two short questionnaires to evaluate amnesia and patient satisfaction. There will be no direct benefits for the participants as a result of their participation in this study.

Women with extremely dense breasts (nearly all glandular and connective tissue, little fatty tissue) have a 3-6 times higher risk of breast cancer than women with very low breast density. Moreover, due to the masking effect of the dense tissue, any breast tumours present are more difficult to detect in these women. With the results of the DENSE trial, the investigators showed that among women with extremely dense breasts, a combination of MRI and mammography could detect tumours earlier than mammography only. As the implementation of MRI in the screening program induces considerable costs and capacity requirements, the Dutch Ministry of Health would like to investigate whether cheaper and acceptable alternatives can be implemented more easily. In the DENSE-2 study, proposed here, we will investigate contrast-enhanced mammography and an abbreviated form of MRI as alternatives, in a large-scale randomized trial, within the current population-based screening program.

Objective: To evaluate if spinal cord stimulation (SCS) performs better than placebo (no stimulation) in the long term to reduce persistent neuropathic leg pain refractory to medication and other conservative treatments in patients who have undergone lumbar spinal surgery.
Study design: Multicenter, double blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial.
After a positive SCS test trial, participants (18-70 years) will be implanted with a non-rechargeable SCS system providing active, subthreshold stimulation and followed for 12 months in a blinded cross-over design. The primary outcome measure is the difference in change in leg pain intensity scores using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) between a 3-month period with optimized subthreshold stimulation, and a 3-month period with no stimulation, as compared to baseline. Quality of life, physical functioning, sleep quality, return to work, and reduction in medication use will also be investigated.
Background: Up to 20% of patients who have undergone lumbar spinal surgery experience persistent back/leg pain leading to long-term reduction in functionality and quality of life. SCS is an established and safe, minimally invasive treatment for these patients when no further surgery is indicated and conservative therapies have been found to be ineffective. Placebo-controlled studies, comparing active and sham stimulation, were lacking until recently as traditional SCS relied on the patient feeling the stimulation (paresthesia). Technological progress with development of paresthesia-free stimulation forms now allows for the execution of placebo-controlled studies. A recent trial showing no significant difference in long-term effectiveness between active SCS and sham suffers from significant methodological shortcomings. This necessitates further sham-controlled studies to determine the effectiveness of SCS.