DRAIN: Thoracentesis for Heart Failure with Pleural Effusions
This study, called DRAIN, is looking at whether removing fluid from around the lungs (a procedure called thoracentesis) can help hospitalized patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) who also have fluid buildup in their lungs (pleural effusion). Researchers want to see if adding thoracentesis to standard medical care is better at reducing shortness of breath than medical care alone. You could be eligible if you are an adult (over 18) with a diagnosis of acute decompensated heart failure and signs of fluid overload, including pleural effusion. The main goal is to see how much your shortness of breath improves after 30 days. The current status of this study is unclear, and it plans to enroll 216 participants.
- Study design
- This is an interventional study comparing medical therapy with and without thoracentesis. It plans to enroll 216 participants.
- What's involved
- You would receive medical therapy, potentially with thoracentesis. You would also record your shortness of breath and quality of life using standard scales, and have two short phone calls at 14 and 30 days after joining.
- Compensation
- Not stated in the trial record.
- Follow-up
- Your shortness of breath and quality of life will be assessed at 14 and 30 days after enrollment.
AI-generated from the public study record. Only the study team can confirm whether you're eligible — confirm details with them before making decisions.
DRAIN: DRainage in Acute Decompensated Heart faIlure With Pleural effusioNs
At a glance
Conditions
Where it's being run
1 sites across 1 statesWho to contact
Opens a ready-to-send draft in your own email app — review before sending.
Do you actually qualify for this trial?
Add a private profile and we'll compare every criterion below against your situation — and tell you which ones are met, uncertain, or excluding.
Inclusion
Exclusion
What this trial measures
- Dyspnea30 days
Degree of dyspnea will be assessed as by using a validated 100 mm visual analog scale in participants of both groups. Dyspnea will be assessed using a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS). The VAS consisted of a horizontal straight line with endpoints defining extreme limits, with the left end marked as "no trouble" (0 mm) and the right end as "very much trouble" (100 mm). A higher VAS score indicated more severe dyspnea. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was defined as ≥ 14 mm improvement on this 100 mm scale, adapted from the established 24-hour VAS dyspnea threshold for clinical practicality in our setting.