Dataset Information

Results of a randomized phase III/IV trial comparing intermittent bolus versus continuous infusion of antihaemophilic factor (recombinant) in adults with severe or moderately severe haemophilia A undergoing major orthopaedic surgery.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

In patients with haemophilia A undergoing surgery, factor VIII (FVIII) replacement therapy by continuous infusion (CI) may offer an alternative to bolus infusion (BI).

Aim

To compare the perioperative haemostatic efficacy and safety of antihaemophilic factor (recombinant) (ADVATE^® ; Baxalta US Inc., a Takeda company, Lexington, MA, USA) CI or BI administration.

Methods

In this multicentre, phase III/IV, controlled study (NCT00357656), 60 previously treated adult patients with severe or moderately severe disease undergoing elective unilateral major orthopaedic surgery (knee replacement, n = 48; hip surgery, n = 4; other, n = 8) requiring drain placement were randomized to receive antihaemophilic factor (recombinant) CI (n = 29) or BI (n = 31) through postoperative day 7. Primary outcome measure was cumulative packed red blood cell (PRBC)/blood volume in the drainage fluid within 24 h after surgery, used to establish non-inferiority of CI to BI.

Results

CI:BI ratio of cumulative PRBC volume in the 24-h drainage fluid was 0.92 (p-value <.001 for non-inferiority; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.05). Total antihaemophilic factor (recombinant) dose per kg body weight received in the combined trans- and postoperative periods was similar with CI and BI to maintain targeted FVIII levels during/after surgery. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were reported in five patients treated by CI (eight events) and five treated by BI (six events), including two serious AEs in each arm.

Conclusion

CI administration of antihaemophilic factor (recombinant) is a viable alternative to BI in patients with haemophilia A undergoing major orthopaedic surgery, providing comparable efficacy and safety.

SUBMITTER: Pabinger I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8252548 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Intravenous loop diuretics are a cornerstone of therapy in acutely decompensated heart failure (ADHF). We sought to determine if there are any differences in clinical outcomes between intravenous bolus and continuous infusion of loop diuretics.Subjects with ADHF within 12 hours of hospital admission were randomly assigned to continuous infusion or twice daily bolus therapy with furosemide. There were three co-primary endpoints assessed from admission to discharge: the mean paired changes in serum creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and reduction in B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP). Secondary endpoints included the rate of acute kidney injury (AKI), change in body weight and six months follow-up evaluation after discharge.A total of 43 received a continuous infusion and 39 were assigned to bolus treatment. At discharge, the mean change in serum creatinine was higher (+0.8 ± 0.4 versus -0.8 ± 0.3 mg/dl P <0.01), and eGFR was lower (-9 ± 7 versus +5 ± 6 ml/min/1.73 m(2) P <0.05) in the continuous arm. There was no significant difference in the degree of weight loss (-4.1 ± 1.9 versus -3.5 ± 2.4 kg P = 0.23). The continuous infusion arm had a greater reduction in BNP over the hospital course, (-576 ± 655 versus -181 ± 527 pg/ml P = 0.02). The rates of AKI were comparable (22% and 15% P = 0.3) between the two groups. There was more frequent use of hypertonic saline solutions for hyponatremia (33% versus 18% P <0.01), intravenous dopamine infusions (35% versus 23% P = 0.02), and the hospital length of stay was longer in the continuous infusion group (14. 3 ± 5 versus 11.5 ± 4 days, P <0.03). At 6 months there were higher rates of re-admission or death in the continuous infusion group, 58% versus 23%, (P = 0.001) and this mode of treatment independently associated with this outcome after adjusting for baseline and intermediate variables (adjusted hazard ratio = 2.57, 95% confidence interval, 1.01 to 6.58 P = 0.04).In the setting of ADHF, continuous infusion of loop diuretics resulted in greater reductions in BNP from admission to discharge. However, this appeared to occur at the consequence of worsened renal filtration function, use of additional treatment, and higher rates of rehospitalization or death at six months.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01441245. Registered 23 September 2011.

Project description:BackgroundMinimally invasive thoracic surgery (MITS) has been shown to reduce postoperative pain and contribute to better postoperative quality of life as compared to open thoracic surgery (Bendixen et al., Lancet Oncol 17:836-44, 2016). However, it still causes significant post-operative pain. Regional anaesthesia techniques including fascial plane blocks such as the erector spinae plane block (ESP) have been shown to contribute to post-operative pain control after MITS (Finnerty et al., Br J Anaesth 125:802-10, 2020). Case reports relating to ESP catheters have described improved quality of pain relief using programmed intermittent boluses (PIB) instead of continuous infusion (Bendixen et al., Lancet Oncol 17:836-44, 2016). It is suggested that larger, repeated bolus dose may provide superior pain relief, possibly because of improved spread of the local anaesthetic medications (Ilfeld and Gabriel, Reg Anesth Pain Med 44:285-86, 2019). Evidence for improved spread of local anaesthetic may be found in one study which demonstrated that PIB increased the spread of local anaesthetic medication compared to continuous infusions for continuous paravertebral blocks, which are another type of regional anaesthesia technique for the chest wall (Hida et al., Reg Anesth Pain Med 44:326-32, 2019). Similarly, regarding labour epidural analgesia, the weight of evidence is in favour of PIB providing better pain relief compared with continuous infusion (Onuoha, Anesthesiol Clin 35:1-14, 2017). Since fascial plane blocks, such as ESP, rely on the spread of local anaesthetic medication between muscle layers of the chest wall, intermittent boluses may be particularly useful for this group of blocks. However, until recently, pumps capable of providing automated boluses in addition to patient-controlled boluses were not widely available. To best of our knowledge, there are no randomised controlled trials comparing continuous infusion versus intermittent bolus strategies for erector spinae plane block for MITS in terms of patient centred outcomes such as quality of recovery.MethodsThis trial will be a prospective, double-blinded, randomised controlled superiority trial. A total of 60 eligible patients will be randomly assigned to receive an intermittent bolus regime of local anaesthetic vs a continuous infusion of local anaesthetic. The medication will be delivered via an ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block catheter which will be inserted by an anaesthesiologist while the patient is under general anaesthetic before their MITS surgery begins. The primary outcome being measured is the Quality of Recovery (QoR-15) score between the two groups 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes include respiratory testing of maximal inspiratory volume measured with a calibrated incentive spirometer, area under the curve for Verbal Rating Score for pain at rest and on deep inspiration versus time over 48 h, total opioid consumption over 48 h, QoR-15 score at 48 h and time to first mobilisation.DiscussionDespite surgical advancements in thoracic surgery, severe acute post-operative pain following MITS is still prevalent. This study will provide new knowledge and possible recommendations about the efficacy of programmed intermittent bolus regimen of local anaesthetic vs a continuous infusion of local anaesthetic via an ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane catheter for patients undergoing MITS.Trial registrationThis trial was pre-registered on ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05181371 . Registered on 6 January 2022. All item from the World Health Organization Trial Registration Data set have been included.