Dataset Information

Randomized clinical trial of remote ischaemic preconditioning versus no preconditioning in the prevention of perioperative myocardial infarction during open surgery for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.

ABSTRACT: Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) has been suggested as a means of protecting vital organs from reperfusion injury during major vascular surgery. This study was designed to determine whether RIPC could reduce the incidence of perioperative myocardial infarction (MI) during open surgery for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Secondary aims were to see if RIPC could reduce 30-day mortality, multiple organ failure, acute intestinal ischaemia, acute kidney injury and ischaemic stroke.This randomized, non-blinded clinical trial was undertaken at three vascular surgery centres in Denmark. Patients who had open surgery for ruptured AAA were randomized to intervention with RIPC or control in a 1 : 1 ratio. Postoperative complications and deaths were registered, and ECG and blood samples were obtained daily during the hospital stay.Of 200 patients randomized, 142 (72 RIPC, 70 controls) were included. There was no difference in rates of perioperative MI between the RIPC and control groups (36 versus 43 per cent respectively), or in rates of organ failure. However, in the per-protocol analysis 30-day mortality was significantly reduced in the RIPC group (odds ratio 0·46, 95 per cent c.i. 0·22 to 0·99; P = 0·048).RIPC did not reduce the incidence of perioperative MI in patients undergoing open surgery for ruptured AAA. Registration number: NCT00883363 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

SUBMITTER: Pedersen TF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5989967 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Randomized clinical trial of remote ischaemic preconditioning versus no preconditioning in the prevention of perioperative myocardial infarction during open surgery for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.

Pedersen T F TF Budtz-Lilly J J Petersen C N CN Hyldgaard J J Schmidt J-O JO Kroijer R R Grønholdt M-L ML Eldrup N N

BJS open 20180326 3

<h4>Background</h4>Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) has been suggested as a means of protecting vital organs from reperfusion injury during major vascular surgery. This study was designed to determine whether RIPC could reduce the incidence of perioperative myocardial infarction (MI) during open surgery for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Secondary aims were to see if RIPC could reduce 30-day mortality, multiple organ failure, acute intestinal ischaemia, acute kidney injury and ...[more]

PMID: 29951634

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMultiple organ failure (MOF) is associated with poor outcomes and increased mortality in sepsis and trauma. There are limited data regarding MOF in patients after ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) repair. We aimed to identify the contemporary prevalence and characteristics of patients with rAAA with MOF.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed patients with rAAA who underwent repair (2010-2020) at our multihospital institution. Patients who died within the first 2 days after repair were excluded. MOF was quantified by modified (excluding hepatic system) Denver, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, and Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score (MODS) for postoperative days 3 to 5 to determine the prevalence of MOF. MOF was defined as a Denver score of >3, dysfunction in two or more organ systems by SOFA score, or a MODS score of >8. Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank testing were used to evaluate differences in 30-day mortality between multiple organ failure and patients without MOF. Logistic regression was used to assess predictors of MOF.ResultsOf 370 patients with rAAA, 288 survived past two days (mean age, 73±10.1 years; 76.7% male; 44.1% open repair), and 143 had data for MOF calculation recorded. From postoperative days 3 to 5, 41 (14.24%) had MOF by Denver, 26 (9.03%) by SOFA, and 39 (13.54%) by MODS criteria. Among these scoring systems, pulmonary and neurological systems were impacted most commonly. Among patients with MOF, pulmonary derangement occurred in 65.9% (Denver), 57.7% (SOFA), and 56.4% (MODS). Similarly, neurological derangement occurred in 92.3% (SOFA) and 89.7% (MODS), but renal derangement occurred in 26.8% (Denver), 23.1% (SOFA), and 10.3% (MODS). MOF by all three scoring systems was associated with increased 30-day mortality (Denver: 11.3% vs 41.5% [P < .01]; DOFA: 12.6% vs 46.2% [P < .01]; MODS: 12.5% vs 35.9% [P < .01]), as was MOF by any criteria (10.8% vs 35.7 %; P < .01). Patients with MOF were more likely to have a higher body mass index (55.9±26.6 vs 49.0±15.0; P = .011) and to have had a preoperative stroke (17.9% vs 6.0%; P = .016). Patients with MOF were less likely to have undergone endovascular repair (30.4% vs 62.1%; P < .001). Endovascular repair was protective against MOF (any criteria) on multivariate analysis (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.64; P = .019) after adjusting for age, gender, and presenting systolic blood pressure.ConclusionsMOF occurred in only 9% to 14% of patients after rAAA repair, but was associated with a three-fold increase in mortality. Endovascular repair was associated with a reduced MOF incidence.

Project description:BackgroundDespite advances in perioperative care, elective major vascular surgical procedures still carry a significant risk of morbidity and mortality. Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) is the temporary blocking of blood flow to vascular beds remote from those targeted by surgery. It has the potential to provide local tissue protection from further prolonged periods of ischaemia. However, the efficacy and safety of RIPC in people undergoing major vascular surgery remain unknown. This is an update of a review published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of RIPC versus no RIPC in people undergoing elective major vascular and endovascular surgery.Search methodsThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov to 1 April 2022.Selection criteriaWe included all randomised controlled trials that evaluated the role of RIPC in reducing perioperative mortality and morbidities in people undergoing elective major vascular or endovascular surgery.Data collection and analysisWe collected data on the characteristics of the trial, methodological quality, and the remote ischaemic preconditioning stimulus used. Our primary outcome was perioperative mortality, and secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction, renal impairment, stroke, hospital stay, limb loss, and operating time or total anaesthetic time. We analysed the data using random-effects models. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) based on an intention-to-treat analysis. In addition, we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.Main resultsWe included 14 trials which randomised a total of 1295 participants (age range: 64.5 to 76 years; 84% male; study periods ranged from 2003 to 2019). In general, the included studies were at low to unclear risk of bias for most risk of bias domains. The certainty of evidence of main outcomes was moderate due to imprecision of results, moderate heterogeneity, or possible publication bias. We found that RIPC made no clear difference in perioperative mortality compared with no RIPC (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.59 to 3.40; I2 = 0%; 10 studies, 965 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Similarly, we found no clear difference between the two groups for myocardial infarction (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.40; I2 = 7%; 11 studies, 1001 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), renal impairment (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.86; I2 = 40%; 12 studies, 1054 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), stroke (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.15; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 392 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), limb loss (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.05 to 10.61; I2 = 32%; 3 studies, 322 participants; low-certainty evidence), hospital stay (MD -0.94 day, 95% CI -1.95 to 0.07; I2 = 17%; 7 studies, 569 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and operating time or total anaesthetic time (MD 5.76 minutes, 95% CI -3.25 to 14.76; I2 = 44%; 10 studies, 803 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, compared with no RIPC, RIPC probably leads to little or no difference in perioperative mortality, myocardial infarction, renal impairment, stroke, hospital stay, and operating time, and may lead to little or no difference in limb loss in people undergoing elective major vascular and endovascular surgery. Adequately powered and designed randomised studies are needed, focusing in particular on the clinical endpoints and patient-centred outcomes.

Project description:Despite advances in operative repair, ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) remains associated with high mortality and morbidity rates, especially in elderly patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR), conventional open repair (OPEN), and conservative treatment in elderly patients with rAAA.We conducted a retrospective study of all rAAA patients treated with OPEN or eEVAR between January 2005 and December 2011 in the vascular surgery department at Amphia Hospital, the Netherlands. The outcome in patients treated for rAAA by eEVAR or OPEN repair was investigated. Special attention was paid to patients who were admitted and did not receive operative intervention due to serious comorbidity, extremely advanced age, or poor physical condition. We calculated the 30-day rAAA-related mortality for all rAAA patients admitted to our hospital.Twelve patients did not receive operative emergency repair due to extreme fragility (mean age 87 years, median time to mortality 27 hours). Twenty-three patients had eEVAR and 82 had OPEN surgery. The 30-day mortality rate in operated patients was 30% (7/23) in the eEVAR group versus 26% (21/82) in the OPEN group (P=0.64). No difference in mortality was noted between eEVAR and OPEN over 5 years of follow-up. There were more cardiac adverse events in the OPEN group (n=25, 31%) than in the eEVAR group (n=2, 9%; P=0.035). Reintervention after discharge was more frequent in patients who received eEVAR (35%) than in patients who had OPEN (6%, P<0.001). Advancing age was associated with increasing mortality (hazard ratio 1.05 [95% confidence interval 1.01-1.09]) per year for patients who received operative repair, with a 67%, 76%, and 100% 5-year mortality rate in the 34 patients aged <70 years, 59 patients aged 70-79 years, and 12 octogenarians, respectively; 30-day rAAA-related mortality was also associated with increasing age (21%, 30%, and 61%, respectively; P=0.008).The 30-day and 5-year mortality in patients who survived rAAA was equal between the treatment options of eEVAR and OPEN. Particularly fragile and very elderly patients did not receive operative repair. The decision to intervene in rAAA should not be made on the basis of patient age alone, but also in relation to comorbidity and patient preference.

Dataset Information

Randomized clinical trial of remote ischaemic preconditioning versus no preconditioning in the prevention of perioperative myocardial infarction during open surgery for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.

Publications

Randomized clinical trial of remote ischaemic preconditioning versus no preconditioning in the prevention of perioperative myocardial infarction during open surgery for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets