An interventional study of Treatment as per model probability and Treatment as per usual care in Dyspnea, Acute Heart Failure and Shortness of Breath, sponsored by Unity Health Toronto. Completed at 3 sites in 3 countries. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2014-06-16.
Sponsored by Unity Health Toronto · Not applicable, Interventional, and Diagnostic
The purpose of this study is to evaluate a validated diagnostic prediction model in the appropriate diagnosis of Acute Heart Failure (AHF) in patients presenting at the emergency department with undifferentiated dyspnea.
681 studies on the registry are indexed under Dyspnea; 159 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 186 is above the median of 48 across 447 interventional studies indexed under Dyspnea.
Browse Dyspnea studies →Unity Health Toronto is the lead sponsor of 444 studies on the registry; 80 are open to participants now.
Of its 5 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 1 (20%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Other: Treatment as per model probability
Other: Treatment as per usual care
Patients randomized to the arm where the clinician is exposed to the model results should be treated as per the model probability (i.e. if the model probability suggests AHF the clinician should treat for AHF).
Patients randomized to the arm where the clinician is blinded to the model results will undergo diagnostic tests and receive treatment as per the clinician's judgment and usual care standards.
Comparison of diagnostic model versus clinical judgment in appropriate diagnosis of Acute Heart Failure in dyspneic emergency department patients
Time frame: 60 days after patient presentation to the emergency department
Determine if use of the diagnostic prediction model leads to cost savings and better health outcomes
Time frame: From randomization until 60 days after patient presentation to the emergency department
The record gives a start of Sep 2010, a primary completion of Jun 2014 and a completion of Jun 2014. It does not say whether these dates are actual or estimated.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
This study is completed, as verified in Jun 2014. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.