Refine
Document Type
- Article (4)
Language
- English (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Keywords
- Colloids (2)
- Abdominal surgery (1)
- Acute kidney injury (1)
- Blood (1)
- Blood loss (1)
- Chlorides (1)
- Electrolytes (1)
- HES (1)
- Hydroxyethyl starch (1)
- Intensive care units (1)
Institute
- Medizin (4)
In contrast to several smaller studies, which demonstrate that remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) reduces myocardial injury in patients that undergo cardiovascular surgery, the RIPHeart study failed to demonstrate beneficial effects of troponin release and clinical outcome in propofol-anesthetized cardiac surgery patients. Therefore, we addressed the potential biochemical mechanisms triggered by RIPC. This is a predefined prospective sub-analysis of the randomized and controlled RIPHeart study in cardiac surgery patients (n = 40) that was recently published. Blood samples were drawn from patients prior to surgery, after RIPC of four cycles of 5 min arm ischemia/5 min reperfusion (n = 19) and the sham (n = 21) procedure, after connection to cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), at the end of surgery, 24 h postoperatively, and 48 h postoperatively for the measurement of troponin T, macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF), stromal cell-derived factor 1 (CXCL12), IL-6, CXCL8, and IL-10. After RIPC, right atrial tissue samples were taken for the measurement of extracellular-signal regulated kinase (ERK1/2), protein kinase B (AKT), Glycogen synthase kinase 3 (GSK-3β), protein kinase C (PKCε), and MIF content. RIPC did not significantly reduce the troponin release when compared with the sham procedure. MIF serum levels intraoperatively increased, peaking at intensive care unit (ICU) admission (with an increase of 48.04%, p = 0.164 in RIPC; and 69.64%, p = 0.023 over the baseline in the sham procedure), and decreased back to the baseline 24 h after surgery, with no differences between the groups. In the right atrial tissue, MIF content decreased after RIPC (1.040 ± 1.032 Arbitrary units [au] in RIPC vs. 2.028 ± 1.631 [au] in the sham procedure, p < 0.05). CXCL12 serum levels increased significantly over the baseline at the end of surgery, with no differences between the groups. ERK1/2, AKT, GSK-3β, and PKCɛ phosphorylation in the right atrial samples were no different between the groups. No difference was found in IL-6, CXCL8, and IL10 serum levels between the groups. In this cohort of cardiac surgery patients that received propofol anesthesia, we could not show a release of potential mediators of signaling, nor an effect on the inflammatory response, nor an activation of well-established protein kinases after RIPC. Based on these data, we cannot exclude that confounding factors, such as propofol, may have interfered with RIPC.
Introduction: Balanced fluid replacement solutions can possibly reduce the risks for electrolyte imbalances, for acid-base imbalances, and thus for renal failure. To assess the intraoperative change of base excess (BE) and chloride in serum after treatment with either a balanced gelatine/electrolyte solution or a non-balanced gelatine/electrolyte solution, a prospective, controlled, randomized, double-blind, dual centre phase III study was conducted in two tertiary care university hospitals in Germany.
Material and methods: 40 patients of both sexes, aged 18 to 90 years, who were scheduled to undergo elective abdominal surgery with assumed intraoperative volume requirement of at least 15 mL/kg body weight gelatine solution were included. Administration of study drug was performed intravenously according to patients need. The trigger for volume replacement was a central venous pressure (CVP) minus positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) <10 mmHg (CVP <10 mmHg). The crystalloid:colloid ratio was 1:1 intra- and postoperatively. The targets for volume replacement were a CVP between 10 and 14 mmHg minus PEEP after treatment with vasoactive agent and mean arterial pressure (MAP) > 65 mmHg.
Results: The primary endpoints, intraoperative changes of base excess –2.59 ± 2.25 (median: –2.65) mmol/L (balanced group) and –4.79 ± 2.38 (median: –4.70) mmol/L (non-balanced group)) or serum chloride 2.4 ± 1.9 (median: 3.0) mmol/L and 5.2 ± 3.1 (median: 5.0) mmol/L were significantly different (p = 0.0117 and p = 0.0045, respectively). In both groups (each n = 20) the investigational product administration in terms of volume and infusion rate was comparable throughout the course of the study, i.e. before, during and after surgery.
Discussion: Balanced gelatine solution 4% combined with a balanced electrolyte solution demonstrated significant smaller impact on blood gas analytic parameters in the primary endpoints BE and serum chloride when compared to a non-balanced gelatine solution 4% combined with NaCl 0.9%. No marked treatment differences were observed with respect to haemodynamics, coagulation and renal function.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01515397) and clinicaltrialsregister.eu, EudraCT number 2010-018524-58.
Introduction: Hip fracture surgery is associated with high in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates and serious adverse patient outcomes. Evidence from randomised controlled trials regarding effectiveness of spinal versus general anaesthesia on patient-centred outcomes after hip fracture surgery is sparse.
Methods and analysis: The iHOPE study is a pragmatic national, multicentre, randomised controlled, open-label clinical trial with a two-arm parallel group design. In total, 1032 patients with hip fracture (>65 years) will be randomised in an intended 1:1 allocation ratio to receive spinal anaesthesia (n=516) or general anaesthesia (n=516). Outcome assessment will occur in a blinded manner after hospital discharge and inhospital. The primary endpoint will be assessed by telephone interview and comprises the time to the first occurring event of the binary composite outcome of all-cause mortality or new-onset serious cardiac and pulmonary complications within 30 postoperative days. In-hospital secondary endpoints, assessed via in-person interviews and medical record review, include mortality, perioperative adverse events, delirium, satisfaction, walking independently, length of hospital stay and discharge destination. Telephone interviews will be performed for long-term endpoints (all-cause mortality, independence in walking, chronic pain, ability to return home cognitive function and overall health and disability) at postoperative day 30±3, 180±45 and 365±60.
Ethics and dissemination: iHOPE has been approved by the leading Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the RWTH Aachen University on 14 March 2018 (EK 022/18). Approval from all other involved local Ethical Committees was subsequently requested and obtained. Study started in April 2018 with a total recruitment period of 24 months. iHOPE will be disseminated via presentations at national and international scientific meetings or conferences and publication in peer-reviewed international scientific journals.
Trial registration number: DRKS00013644; Pre-results
Background
Trauma may be associated with significant to life-threatening blood loss, which in turn may increase the risk of complications and death, particularly in the absence of adequate treatment. Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) solutions are used for volume therapy to treat hypovolemia due to acute blood loss to maintain or re-establish hemodynamic stability with the ultimate goal to avoid organ hypoperfusion and cardiovascular collapse. The current study compares a 6% HES 130 solution (Volulyte 6%) versus an electrolyte solution (Ionolyte) for volume replacement therapy in adult patients with traumatic injuries, as requested by the European Medicines Agency to gain more insights into the safety and efficacy of HES in the setting of trauma care.
Methods
TETHYS is a pragmatic, prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicenter, multinational trial performed in two parallel groups. Eligible consenting adults ≥ 18 years, with an estimated blood loss of ≥ 500 ml, and in whom initial surgery is deemed necessary within 24 h after blunt or penetrating trauma, will be randomized to receive intravenous treatment at an individualized dose with either a 6% HES 130, or an electrolyte solution, for a maximum of 24 h or until reaching the maximum daily dose of 30 ml/kg body weight, whatever occurs first. Sample size is estimated as 175 patients per group, 350 patients total (α = 0.025 one-tailed, power 1–β = 0.8). Composite primary endpoint evaluated in an exploratory manner will be 90-day mortality and 90-day renal failure, defined as AKIN stage ≥ 2, RIFLE injury/failure stage, or use of renal replacement therapy (RRT) during the first 3 months. Secondary efficacy and safety endpoints are fluid administration and balance, changes in vital signs and hemodynamic status, changes in laboratory parameters including renal function, coagulation, and inflammation biomarkers, incidence of adverse events during treatment period, hospital, and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, fitness for ICU or hospital discharge, and duration of mechanical ventilation and/or RRT.
Discussion
This pragmatic study will increase the evidence on safety and efficacy of 6% HES 130 for treatment of hypovolemia secondary to acute blood loss in trauma patients.
Trial registration
Registered in EudraCT, No.: 2016-002176-27 (21 April 2017) and ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03338218 (09 November 2017).
