Higher arterial pressure during cardiopulmonary bypass may not reduce the risk of acute kidney injury.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery is common and associated with increased mortality. It is unknown whether an intended higher arterial pressure during cardiopulmonary bypass reduces the incidence of acute and chronic kidney injury. METHODS: Patients were randomised either to a control group or a high pressure group (arterial pressure > 60 mmHg). The inclusion criteria were age > 70 years, combined cardiac surgery and serum creatinine < 200 µmol/L. Glomerular filtration rate using the Cr-EDTA clearance method was measured the day before surgery and 4 months postoperatively. The RIFLE criteria were used to define the presence of acute kidney injury. In addition, the ratio between urinary Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin (NGAL) and creatinine was measured. RESULTS: Ninety patients were included. Mean age was 76 ± 4 years and 76% were male. Mean arterial pressure was 47 ± 5 mmHg in the control group and 61 ± 4 mmHg in the high pressure group (p < 0.0001). The change in glomerular filtration rate at follow-up was - 9 ± 12 ml/min in the control group and - 5 ± 16 ml/min in the high pressure group (p = 0.288, 95% CI - 13 to 4). According to the RIFLE criteria 38% in the control group and 46% in the high pressure group developed acute kidney injury (p = 0.447). The postoperative urinary NGAL/creatinine ratio was comparable between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: An intended increase in arterial pressure during cardiopulmonary bypass to > 60 mmHg did not decrease the incidence of acute or chronic kidney injury after cardiac surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT01408420 . Registered 3rd of August 2011.

Thrombelastographic hypercoagulability and antiplatelet therapy after coronary artery bypass surgery (TEG-CABG trial): a randomized controlled trial.

A hypercoagulable state has, in observational studies, been associated with increased risk of thromboembolic events. The aim of this trial was to study whether dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with clopidogrel in addition to aspirin could reduce the rate of graft occlusions, thromboembolic events, and death compared to aspirin monotherapy in hypercoagulable patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery. A total of 1683 patients were screened for eligibility, among which 165 patients were randomized and 133 patients underwent multislice computed tomography scan to evaluate their grafts. Thrombelastography (TEG) and multiplate aggregometry were performed before and after surgery, and again at three months follow up. TEG hypercoagulability was defined as the maximum amplitude above 69 mm. At three months follow up, 17 out of 66 (25.7%) DAPT patients and 15 of 67 (22.4%) aspirin patients had significant graft stenosis or occlusions (p = 0.839). Saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) were stenosed or occluded in 15 (22.7%) patients in the DAPT group and 7 (10.4%) in the aspirin group (p = 0.167). Thromboembolic events and death after the second postoperative day (when clopidogrel was started) were numerically, but not statistically, lower in the DAPT group, 3 (3.8%) vs. 8 (9.9%), p = 0.211. In univariate logistic regression analysis, only postoperative day 4 platelet response to aspirin measured with multiplate was correlated with graft occlusion, OR 1.020 [1.002-1.039], p = 0.033. This is the first trial to test the hypothesis of intensified antiplatelet therapy in hypercoagulable patients. Due to the low enrollment and high loss to follow up, our results can only be viewed as hypothesis generating. We found a high rate of graft occlusions in this patient population. Our results were not suggestive of that DAPT improved saphenous vein graft patency. A trend was observed in patients on DAPT toward fewer MI and deaths. Postoperative response to aspirin therapy was found to be associated with early SVG occlusion.

Pulmonary artery perfusion versus no pulmonary perfusion during cardiopulmonary bypass in patients with COPD: a randomised clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Absence of pulmonary perfusion during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) may be associated with reduced postoperative oxygenation. Effects of active pulmonary artery perfusion were explored in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS: 90 patients were randomised to receive pulmonary artery perfusion during CPB with either oxygenated blood (n=30) or histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate (HTK) solution (n=29) compared with no pulmonary perfusion (n=31). The coprimary outcomes were the inverse oxygenation index compared at 21 hours after starting CPB and longitudinally in a mixed-effects model (MEM). Secondary outcomes were tracheal intubation time, serious adverse events, mortality, days alive outside the intensive care unit (ICU) and outside the hospital. RESULTS: 21 hours after starting CPB patients receiving pulmonary artery perfusion with normothermic oxygenated blood had a higher oxygenation index compared with no pulmonary perfusion (mean difference (MD) 0.94; 95% CI 0.05 to 1.83; p=0.04). The blood group had also a higher oxygenation index both longitudinally (MEM, p=0.009) and at 21 hours (MD 0.99; CI 0.29 to 1.69; p=0.007) compared with the HTK group. The latest result corresponds to a difference in the arterial partial pressure of oxygen of 23 mm Hg with a median fraction of inspired oxygen of 0.32. Yet the blood or HTK groups did not demonstrate a longitudinally higher oxygenation index compared with no pulmonary perfusion (MEM, p=0.57 and 0.17). Similarly, at 21 hours there was no difference in the oxygenation index between the HTK group and those no pulmonary perfusion (MD 0.06; 95% CI -0.73 to 0.86; p=0.87). There were no statistical significant differences between the groups for the secondary outcomes. DISCUSSION: Pulmonary artery perfusion with normothermic oxygenated blood during cardiopulmonary bypass appears to improve postoperative oxygenation in patients with COPD undergoing cardiac surgery. Pulmonary artery perfusion with hypothermic HTK solution does not seem to improve postoperative oxygenation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01614951; Pre-results.

Preoperative hemostatic testing and the risk of postoperative bleeding in coronary artery bypass surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: We sought to assess predictability of excessive bleeding using thrombelastography (TEG), multiplate impedance aggregometry, and conventional coagulation tests including fibrinogen in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. METHODS: A total of 170 patients were enrolled in this prospective observational study. TEG, Multiplate aggregometry, and coagulation tests were sampled on the day before surgery. Excessive bleeding was defined as >1000 mL over 18 hours. RESULTS: Multiplate-adenosine diphosphate (ADP) measurements were significantly lower in patients with excessive bleeding, 85.5AU ± 32.8 versus 108.5AU ± 30.0, p = 0.012. Bivariate analysis revealed body mass index, myocardial infarction, and multiplate-ADP as predictors of bleeding. In multivariable linear regression analysis, multiplate-ADP remained a significant predictor of bleeding (ß: -6.2 [confidence interval: -12.0 to -0.3], p = 0.035). The lowest interval of multiplate-ADP (<50 AUC) was associated with significantly more bleeding and need for platelet concentrate transfusion. Fibrinogen levels <2.5 g/L were also found to be associated with excess bleeding (p = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: Multiplate impedance aggregometry identified patients at risk for excessive bleeding after CABG. Low fibrinogen levels were associated with increased bleeding. Neither routine TEG parameters nor conventional coagulation tests were correlated with bleeding.

Hepatocyte Growth Factor Receptor c-Met Instructs T Cell Cardiotropism and Promotes T Cell Migration to the Heart via Autocrine Chemokine Release.

Effector-T-cell-mediated immunity depends on the efficient localization of antigen-primed lymphocytes to antigen-rich non-lymphoid tissue, which is facilitated by the expression of a unique set of "homing" receptors acquired by memory T cells. We report that engagement of the hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) receptor c-Met by heart-produced HGF during priming in the lymph nodes instructs T cell cardiotropism, which was associated with a specialized homing "signature" (c-Met(+)CCR4(+)CXCR3(+)). c-Met signals facilitated T cell recruitment to the heart via the chemokine receptor CCR5 by inducing autocrine CCR5 ligand release. c-Met triggering was sufficient to support cardiotropic T cell recirculation, while CCR4 and CXCR3 sustained recruitment during heart inflammation. Transient pharmacological blockade of c-Met during T cell priming led to enhanced survival of heart, but not skin, allografts associated with impaired localization of alloreactive T cells to heart grafts. These findings suggest c-Met as a target for development of organ-selective immunosuppressive therapies.

Transit-time flow measurement as a predictor of coronary bypass graft failure at one year angiographic follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Transit-time flow measurement (TTFM) is a commonly used intraoperative method for evaluation of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) anastomoses. This study was undertaken to determine whether TTFM can also be used to predict graft patency at one year postsurgery. METHODS: Three hundred forty-five CABG patients with intraoperative graft flow measurements and one year angiographic follow-up were analyzed. Graft failure was defined as more than 50% stenosis including the "string sign." Logistic regression analysis was used to analyze the risk of graft failure after one year based on graft vessel type, anastomatic configuration, and coronary artery size. RESULTS: Nine hundred eighty-two coronary anastomoses were performed of which 12% had signs of graft failure at one year angiographic follow-up. In internal mammary arteries (IMAs), analysis showed a 4% decrease in graft failure odds for every 1 mL/min increase in TTFM (OR = 0.96, CI = [0.93; 0.99], p = 0.005). ROC analysis showed good discriminative ability for TTFM alone AUC = 69.5% in IMA grafts. For single-vein grafts the decrease in graft failure odds was 2% for every 1 mL/min increase in TTFM (OR = 0.98; CI = [0.97; 1.00], p = 0.059) and AUC of 59.9%. There were no significant relationships between TTFM and graft failure in other graft types or graft configurations. CONCLUSION: The TTFM method has good discriminative ability for assessing the risk of graft failure in certain graft types within the first year after CABG surgery and is a valuable instrument for intraoperative quality assessment of bypass grafts.

Acute kidney injury is independently associated with higher mortality after cardiac surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the incidence of acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery and its association with mortality in a patient population receiving ibuprofen and gentamicin perioperatively. DESIGN: Retrospective study with Cox regression analysis to control for possible preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative confounders. SETTING: University hospital-based single-center study. PARTICIPANTS: All patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting ± valve surgery during 2012. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Acute surgery within 24 hours of coronary angiography, previous nephrectomy, preoperative sCr >2.26 mg/dL and selective cerebral perfusion during cardiopulmonary bypass were used as exclusion criteria. Acute kidney injury was defined, using the Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) criteria. Six hundred eight patients were included in the study. Mean age was 68.2 ± 9.7 years, and 81% were males. Acute kidney injury was seen in 28.1% of the patients. Overall mortality at one year was 7% and 3% in the no-AKI group. At one year, mortality was 15% in patients with AKIN stage 1 and AKIN stage 2 compared to 70% in AKIN stage 3. A hazard ratio of 2.34 (95% CI: 1.21-4.51, p = 0.011) and 5.62 (95% CI: 2.42-13.06), p<0.0001) were found for AKIN stage 1 and 2/3 combined, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: More than 28% of the patients undergoing elective or subacute cardiac surgery developed AKI in this contemporary cohort. Furthermore, acute kidney injury was an independent predictor of increased mortality irrespective of the perioperative risk factors.

Detailed statistical analysis plan for the pulmonary protection trial.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary dysfunction complicates cardiac surgery that includes cardiopulmonary bypass. The pulmonary protection trial evaluates effect of pulmonary perfusion on pulmonary function in patients suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This paper presents the statistical plan for the main publication to avoid risk of outcome reporting bias, selective reporting, and data-driven results as an update to the published design and method for the trial. RESULTS: The pulmonary protection trial is a randomized, parallel group clinical trial that assesses the effect of pulmonary perfusion with oxygenated blood or Custodiol™ HTK (histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate) solution versus no pulmonary perfusion in 90 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. Patients, the statistician, and the conclusion drawers are blinded to intervention allocation. The primary outcome is the oxygenation index from 10 to 15 minutes after the end of cardiopulmonary bypass until 24 hours thereafter. Secondary outcome measures are oral tracheal intubation time, days alive outside the intensive care unit, days alive outside the hospital, and 30- and 90-day mortality, and one or more of the following selected serious adverse events: pneumothorax or pleural effusion requiring drainage, major bleeding, reoperation, severe infection, cerebral event, hyperkaliemia, acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrhythmia, renal replacement therapy, and readmission for a respiratory-related problem. CONCLUSIONS: The pulmonary protection trial investigates the effect of pulmonary perfusion during cardiopulmonary bypass in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. A preserved oxygenation index following pulmonary perfusion may indicate an effect and inspire to a multicenter confirmatory trial to assess a more clinically relevant outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01614951, registered on 6 June 2012.

Antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction for liver transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation is an established treatment option for end-stage liver failure. To date, no consensus has been reached on the use of immunosuppressive T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction of immunosuppression after liver transplantation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction for prevention of acute rejection in liver transplant recipients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 30 September 2013 together with reference checking, citation searching, contact with trial authors and pharmaceutical companies to identify additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised clinical trials assessing immunosuppression with T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction in liver transplant recipients. Our inclusion criteria stated that participants within each included trial should have received the same maintenance immunosuppressive therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used RevMan for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) and of continuous data with mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of systematic errors (bias) using bias risk domains with definitions. We used trial sequential analysis to control for random errors (play of chance). MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 randomised trials with a total of 1589 liver transplant recipients, which studied the use of T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction. All trials were with high risk of bias. We compared any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction in 10 trials with 1589 participants, including interleukin-2 receptor antagonist induction versus corticosteroid induction in nine trials with 1470 participants, and polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction in one trial with 119 participants.Our analyses showed no significant differences regarding mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.43), graft loss (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.53) and acute rejection (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.00), infection (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.09), hepatitis C virus recurrence (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.00), malignancy (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.73), and post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.38) when any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (all low-quality evidence). Cytomegalovirus infection was less frequent in patients receiving any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.75; low-quality evidence). This was also observed when interleukin-2 receptor antagonist induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.83; low-quality evidence), and when polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.70; low-quality evidence). However, when trial sequential analysis regarding cytomegalovirus infection was applied, the required information size was not reached. Furthermore, diabetes mellitus occurred less frequently when T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.60; low-quality evidence), when interleukin-2 receptor antagonist induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; low-quality evidence), and when polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.95; low-quality evidence). When trial sequential analysis was applied, the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit was crossed. We found no subgroup differences for type of interleukin-2 receptor antagonist (basiliximab versus daclizumab). Four trials reported on adverse events. However, no differences between trial groups were noted. Limited data were available for meta-analysis on drug-specific adverse events such as haematological adverse events for antithymocyte globulin. No data were available on quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Because of the low quality of the evidence, the effects of T-cell antibody induction remain uncertain. T-cell specific antibody induction seems to reduce diabetes mellitus and may reduce cytomegalovirus infection when compared with corticosteroid induction. No other clear benefits or harms were associated with the use of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction. For some analyses, the number of trials investigating the use of T-cell specific antibody induction after liver transplantation is small, and the numbers of participants and outcomes in these randomised trials are limited. Furthermore, the included trials are heterogeneous in nature and have applied different types of T-cell specific antibody induction therapy. All trials were at high risk of bias. Hence, additional randomised clinical trials are needed to assess the benefits and harms of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction for liver transplant recipients. Such trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic error and of random error.

Antibody induction versus placebo, no induction, or another type of antibody induction for liver transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation is an established treatment option for end-stage liver failure. To date, no consensus has been reached on the use of immunosuppressive T-cell antibody induction for preventing rejection after liver transplantation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of immunosuppressive T-cell specific antibody induction compared with placebo, no induction, or another type of T-cell specific antibody induction for prevention of acute rejection in liver transplant recipients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) until September 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials assessing immunosuppression with T-cell specific antibody induction compared with placebo, no induction, or another type of antibody induction in liver transplant recipients. Our inclusion criteria stated that participants within each included trial should have received the same maintenance immunosuppressive therapy. We planned to include trials with all of the different types of T-cell specific antibodies that are or have been used for induction (ie., polyclonal antibodies (rabbit of horse antithymocyte globulin (ATG), or antilymphocyte globulin (ALG)), monoclonal antibodies (muromonab-CD3, anti-CD2, or alemtuzumab), and interleukin-2 receptor antagonists (daclizumab, basiliximab, BT563, or Lo-Tact-1)). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used RevMan analysis for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) and of continuous data with mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the risk of systematic errors (bias) using bias risk domains with definitions. We used trial sequential analysis to control for random errors (play of chance). We presented outcome results in a summary of findings table. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 randomised clinical trials with a total of 2067 liver transplant recipients. All 19 trials were with high risk of bias. Of the 19 trials, 16 trials were two-arm trials, and three trials were three-arm trials. Hence, we found 25 trial comparisons with antibody induction agents: interleukin-2 receptor antagonist (IL-2 RA) versus no induction (10 trials with 1454 participants); monoclonal antibody versus no induction (five trials with 398 participants); polyclonal antibody versus no induction (three trials with 145 participants); IL-2 RA versus monoclonal antibody (one trial with 87 participants); and IL-2 RA versus polyclonal antibody (two trials with 112 participants). Thus, we were able to compare T-cell specific antibody induction versus no induction (17 trials with a total of 1955 participants). Overall, no difference in mortality (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.28; low-quality of evidence), graft loss including death (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.19; low-quality of evidence), and adverse events ((RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02; low-quality evidence) outcomes was observed between any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with no induction when the T-cell specific antibody induction agents were analysed together or separately. Acute rejection seemed to be reduced when any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with no induction (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96; moderate-quality evidence), and when trial sequential analysis was applied, the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit was crossed before the required information size was obtained. Furthermore, serum creatinine was statistically significantly higher when T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with no induction (MD 3.77 µmol/L, 95% CI 0.33 to 7.21; low-quality evidence), as well as when polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with no induction, but this small difference was not clinically significant. We found no statistically significant differences for any of the remaining predefined outcomes - infection, cytomegalovirus infection, hepatitis C recurrence, malignancy, post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease, renal failure requiring dialysis, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension - when the T-cell specific antibody induction agents were analysed together or separately. Limited data were available for meta-analysis on drug-specific adverse events such as haematological adverse events for antithymocyte globulin. No data were found on quality of life.When T-cell specific antibody induction agents were compared with another type of antibody induction, no statistically significant differences were found for mortality, graft loss, and acute rejection for the separate analyses. When interleukin-2 receptor antagonists were compared with polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction, drug-related adverse events were less common among participants treated with interleukin-2 receptor antagonists (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.63; low-quality evidence), but this was caused by the results from one trial, and trial sequential analysis could not exclude random errors. We found no statistically significant differences for any of the remaining predefined outcomes: infection, cytomegalovirus infection, hepatitis C recurrence, malignancy, post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease, renal failure requiring dialysis, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension. No data were found on quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effects of T-cell antibody induction remain uncertain because of the high risk of bias of the randomised clinical trials, the small number of randomised clinical trials reported, and the limited numbers of participants and outcomes in the trials. T-cell specific antibody induction seems to reduce acute rejection when compared with no induction. No other clear benefits or harms were associated with the use of any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with no induction, or when compared with another type of T-cell specific antibody. Hence, more randomised clinical trials are needed to assess the benefits and harms of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with placebo, and compared with another type of antibody, for prevention of rejection in liver transplant recipients. Such trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic error (bias) and low risk of random error (play of chance).

Conditioning techniques and ischemic reperfusion injury in relation to on-pump cardiac surgery.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to investigate the potential protective effects of two conditioning methods, on myocardial ischemic and reperfusion injury in relation to cardiac surgery. DESIGN: Totally 68 patients were randomly assigned to either a control group (n = 23), a remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) group (n = 23) or a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue group (n = 22). The RIPC protocol consisted of three cycles of upper limb ischemia. The GLP-1 analogue protocol consisted of intravenous infusion with exenatide. The primary endpoint was postoperative cardiac enzyme release. The other secondary endpoints were metabolic parameters related to myocardial ischemia, measured using microdialysis technique, as well as other operative- and postoperative data. RESULTS: Postoperative cardiac enzyme release indicated a possible beneficial effect of the interventions, but the difference did not reach statistical significance. RIPC showed a trend toward lower levels (p = 0.07). We managed to establish a functional myocardial microdialysis model, but we were unable to demonstrate clear protective effects. CONCLUSIONS: We were in this prospective randomized proof-of-concept trial, unable to show distinct protective effects of the studied conditioning methods. However, this trial can hopefully contribute to generate a productive discussion concerning limitations and future use of cardiac conditioning as well as microdialysis technique.

Endoscopic versus open radial artery harvest and mammario-radial versus aorto-radial grafting in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery: protocol for the 2 × 2 factorial designed randomised NEO trial.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass grafting using the radial artery has, since the 1990s, gone through a revival. Observational studies have indicated better long-term patency when using radial arteries. Therefore, radial artery might be preferred especially in younger patients where long time patency is important. During the last 10 years different endoscopic techniques to harvest the radial artery have evolved. Endoscopic radial artery harvest only requires a small incision near the wrist in contrast to open harvest, which requires an incision from the elbow to the wrist. However, it is unknown whether the endoscopic technique results in fewer complications or a graft patency comparable to open harvest. When the radial artery has been harvested, there are two ways to use the radial artery as a graft. One way is sewing it onto the aorta and another is sewing it onto the mammary artery. It is unknown which technique is the superior revascularisation technique. METHODS/DESIGN: The NEO Trial is a randomised clinical trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design. We plan to randomise 300 participants into four intervention groups: (1) mammario-radial endoscopic group; (2) aorto-radial endoscopic group; (3) mammario-radial open surgery group; and (4) aorto-radial open surgery group.The hand function will be assessed by a questionnaire, a clinical examination, the change in cutaneous sensibility, and the measurement of both sensory and motor nerve conduction velocity at 3 months postoperatively. All the postoperative complications will be registered, and we will evaluate muscular function, scar appearance, vascular supply to the hand, and the graft patency including the patency of the central radial artery anastomosis. A patency evaluation by multi-slice computer tomography will be done at one year postoperatively.We expect the nerve conduction studies and the standardised neurological examinations to be able to discriminate differences in hand function comparing endoscopic to open harvest of the radial artery. The trial also aims to show if there is any patency difference between mammario-radial compared to aorto-radial revascularisation techniques but this objective is exploratory. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01848886.Danish Ethics committee number: H-3-2012-116.Danish Data Protection Agency: 2007-58-0015/jr.n:30-0838.

Off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting.

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains the preferred treatment in patients with complex coronary artery disease. However, whether the procedure should be performed with or without the use of cardiopulmonary bypass, referred to as off-pump and on-pump CABG, is still up for debate. Intuitively, avoidance of cardiopulmonary bypass seems beneficial as the systemic inflammatory response from extracorporeal circulation is omitted, but no single randomized trial has been able to prove off-pump CABG superior to on-pump CABG as regards the hard outcomes death, stroke or myocardial infarction. In contrast, off-pump CABG is technically more challenging and may be associated with increased risk of incomplete revascularization. The purpose of the review is to summarize the current literature comparing outcomes of off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass surgery.

Immunosuppressive T-cell antibody induction for heart transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Heart transplantation has become a valuable and well-accepted treatment option for end-stage heart failure. Rejection of the transplanted heart by the recipient's body is a risk to the success of the procedure, and life-long immunosuppression is necessary to avoid this. Clear evidence is required to identify the best, safest and most effective immunosuppressive treatment strategy for heart transplant recipients. To date, there is no consensus on the use of immunosuppressive antibodies against T-cells for induction after heart transplantation. OBJECTIVES: To review the benefits, harms, feasibility and tolerability of immunosuppressive T-cell antibody induction versus placebo, or no antibody induction, or another kind of antibody induction for heart transplant recipients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 11, 2012), MEDLINE (Ovid) (1946 to November Week 1 2012), EMBASE (Ovid) (1946 to 2012 Week 45), ISI Web of Science (14 November 2012); we also searched two clinical trial registers and checked reference lists in November 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) assessing immunosuppressive T-cell antibody induction for heart transplant recipients. Within individual trials, we required all participants to receive the same maintenance immunosuppressive therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted data independently. RevMan analysis was used for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR), and of continuous data with mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological components were used to assess risks of systematic errors (bias). Trial sequential analysis was used to assess the risks of random errors (play of chance). We assessed mortality, acute rejection, infection, Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder, cancer, adverse events, chronic allograft vasculopathy, renal function, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and hyperlipidaemia. MAIN RESULTS: In this review, we included 22 RCTs that investigated the use of T-cell antibody induction, with a total of 1427 heart-transplant recipients. All trials were judged to be at a high risk of bias. Five trials, with a total of 606 participants, compared any kind of T-cell antibody induction versus no antibody induction; four trials, with a total of 576 participants, compared interleukin-2 receptor antagonist (IL-2 RA) versus no induction; one trial, with 30 participants, compared monoclonal antibody (other than IL-2 RA) versus no antibody induction; two trials, with a total of 159 participants, compared IL-2 RA versus monoclonal antibody (other than IL-2 RA) induction; four trials, with a total of 185 participants, compared IL-2 RA versus polyclonal antibody induction; seven trials, with a total of 315 participants, compared monoclonal antibody (other than IL-2 RA) versus polyclonal antibody induction; and four trials, with a total of 162 participants, compared polyclonal antibody induction versus another kind, or dose of polyclonal antibodies.No significant differences were found for any of the comparisons for the outcomes of mortality, infection, CMV infection, post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder, cancer, adverse events, chronic allograft vasculopathy, renal function, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, or hyperlipidaemia. Acute rejection occurred significantly less frequently when IL-2 RA induction was compared with no induction (93/284 (33%) versus 132/292 (45%); RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.90; I(2) 57%) applying the fixed-effect model. No significant difference was found when the random-effects model was applied (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.17; I(2) 57%). In addition, acute rejection occurred more often statistically when IL-2 RA induction was compared with polyclonal antibody induction (24/90 (27%) versus 10/95 (11%); RR 2.43; 95% CI 1.01 to 5.86; I(2) 28%). For all of these differences in acute rejection, trial sequential alpha-spending boundaries were not crossed and the required information sizes were not reached when trial sequential analysis was performed, indicating that we cannot exclude random errors.We observed some occasional significant differences in adverse events in some of the comparisons, however definitions of adverse events varied between trials, and numbers of participants and events in these outcomes were too small to allow definitive conclusions to be drawn. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that acute rejection might be reduced by IL-2 RA compared with no induction, and by polyclonal antibody induction compared with IL-2 RA, though trial sequential analyses cannot exclude random errors, and the significance of our observations depended on the statistical model used. Furthermore, this review does not show other clear benefits or harms associated with the use of any kind of T-cell antibody induction compared with no induction, or when one type of T-cell antibody is compared with another type of antibody. The number of trials investigating the use of antibodies against T-cells for induction after heart transplantation is small, and the number of participants and outcomes in these RCTs is limited. Furthermore, the included trials are at a high risk of bias. Hence, more RCTs are needed to assess the benefits and harms of T-cell antibody induction for heart-transplant recipients. Such trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic and random error.

Antibody induction therapy for lung transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Lung transplantation has become a valuable and well-accepted treatment option for most end-stage lung diseases. Lung transplant recipients are at risk of transplanted organ rejection, and life-long immunosuppression is necessary. Clear evidence is essential to identify an optimal, safe and effective immunosuppressive treatment strategy for lung transplant recipients. Consensus has not yet been achieved concerning use of immunosuppressive antibodies against T-cells for induction following lung transplantation. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the benefits and harms of immunosuppressive T-cell antibody induction with ATG, ALG, IL-2RA, alemtuzumab, or muromonab-CD3 for lung transplant recipients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to 4 March 2013 through contact with the Trials Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared immunosuppressive monoclonal and polyclonal T-cell antibody induction for lung transplant recipients. An inclusion criterion was that all participants must have received the same maintenance immunosuppressive therapy within each study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors extracted data. We derived risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and trial sequential analyses were undertaken to assess the risk of random errors (play of chance). MAIN RESULTS: Our review included six RCTs (representing a total of 278 adult lung transplant recipients) that assessed the use of T-cell antibody induction. Evaluation of the included studies found all to be at high risk of bias.We conducted comparisons of polyclonal or monoclonal T-cell antibody induction versus no induction (3 studies, 140 participants); polyclonal T-cell antibody versus no induction (3 studies, 125 participants); interleukin-2 receptor antagonists (IL-2RA) versus no induction (1 study, 25 participants); polyclonal T-cell antibody versus muromonab-CD3 (1 study, 64 participants); and polyclonal T-cell antibody versus IL-2RA (3 studies, 100 participants). Overall we found no significant differences among interventions in terms of mortality, acute rejection, adverse effects, infection, pneumonia, cytomegalovirus infection, bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome, post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disease, or cancer.We found a significant outcome difference in one study that compared antithymocyte globulin versus muromonab-CD3 relating to adverse events (25/34 (74%) versus 12/30 (40%); RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.98). This suggested that antithymocyte globulin increased occurrence of adverse events. However, trial sequential analysis found that the required information size had not been reached, and the cumulative Z-curve did not cross the trial sequential alpha-spending monitoring boundaries.None of the studies reported quality of life or kidney injury. Trial sequential analyses indicated that none of the meta-analyses achieved required information sizes and the cumulative Z-curves did not cross the trial sequential alpha-spending monitoring boundaries, nor reached the area of futility. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No clear benefits or harms associated with the use of T-cell antibody induction compared with no induction, or when different types of T-cell antibodies were compared were identified in this review. Few studies were identified that investigated use of antibodies against T-cells for induction after lung transplantation, and numbers of participants and outcomes were also limited. Assessment of the included studies found that all were at high risk of methodological bias.Further RCTs are needed to perform robust assessment of the benefits and harms of T-cell antibody induction for lung transplant recipients. Future studies should be designed and conducted according to methodologies to reduce risks of systematic error (bias) and random error (play of chance).

Tacrolimus versus cyclosporin as primary immunosuppression for lung transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Lung transplantation is a well-accepted treatment for people with most end-stage lung diseases. Although both tacrolimus and cyclosporin are used as primary immunosuppressive agents in lung transplant recipients, it is unclear which of these drugs is better in reducing rejection and death without causing adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of tacrolimus versus cyclosporin for primary immunosuppression in lung transplant recipients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to 10 April 2013 through contact with the Trials Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. We also searched Science Citation Index Expanded and the Transplant Library to 20 April 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared any dose and duration of administration of tacrolimus versus cyclosporin as primary immunosuppressive treatment in lung transplant recipients. Our selection criteria required that all included patients received the same additional immunosuppressive therapy within each study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors extracted data. For dichotomous data we used risk ratio (RR) and used mean difference (MD) for continuous data, each with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological components of the included studies were used to assess risk of systematic errors (bias). Trial sequential analysis was used to assess risk of random errors (play of chance). MAIN RESULTS: We included three studies that enrolled a total of 413 adult patients that compared tacrolimus with microemulsion or oral solution cyclosporin. All studies were found to be at high risk of bias. Tacrolimus seemed to be significantly superior to cyclosporin regarding the incidence of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.74), lymphocytic bronchitis score (MD -0.60, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.16), treatment withdrawal (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.46), and arterial hypertension (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.89). However, the finding for arterial hypertension was not confirmed when analysed using a random-effects model (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.73). Furthermore, trial sequential analysis found that none of the meta-analyses reached the required information sizes and cumulative Z-curves did not cross trial sequential monitoring boundaries. Diabetes mellitus occurred more frequently among people in the tacrolimus group compared with the cyclosporin group when the fixed-effect model was applied (RR 4.24, 95% CI 1.58 to 11.40), but no difference was found when the random-effects model was used for analysis (RR 4.43, 95% CI 0.75 to 26.05). Again, trial sequential analysis found that the required information threshold was not reached and cumulative Z-curve did not cross the trial sequential monitoring boundary. No significant difference between treatment groups was observed regarding mortality (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.49), incidence of acute rejection (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.03), numbers of infections/100 patient-days (MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.00), cancer (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.16), kidney dysfunction (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.14), kidney failure (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.28 to 8.94), neurotoxicity (RR 7.06, 95% CI 0.37 to 135.19), and hyperlipidaemia (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.20). Trial sequential analysis showed the required information thresholds were not reached for any of these outcome measures. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Tacrolimus may be superior to cyclosporin regarding bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome, lymphocytic bronchitis, treatment withdrawal, and arterial hypertension, but may be inferior regarding development of diabetes. No difference in mortality and acute rejection was observed between patients treated with tacrolimus and cyclosporin. There were few studies comparing tacrolimus and cyclosporin after lung transplantation, and the numbers of patients and events in the included studies were limited. Furthermore, the included studies were deemed to be at high risk of bias. Hence, more RCTs are needed to assess the results of the present review. Such studies ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic errors (bias) and of random errors (play of chance).

[Patients with acute critical pulmonary embolism should be evaluated and treated in a centre with medical and surgical possibilities]. / Patienter med svær akut lungeemboli bør visiteres til centre med thoraxkirurgisk ekspertise.

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common and potential lifethreatening condition. Nevertheless the advancements in the patient visitation and treatment algorithms have been few and the mortality unchanged high. Acute high risk PE, which is the most serious subtype, is primary treated with trombolysis. This treatment is not always possible or sufficient. Recent studies have shown that surgical embolectomy is a relevant treatment offer with low mortalities of 6-8%. Patients with acute critical PE should be evaluated and treated in a multidisciplinary centre with medical and surgical possibilities.

Patient-prosthesis mismatch and reduction in left ventricular mass after aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: The presence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) after aortic valve replacement may influence patient survival. We examined the relationship between PPM and changes in left ventricular mass index at 3 months follow-up and also overall survival. METHODS: From patients included in the Mosaic trial, we studied data from 266 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with the Medtronic Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis and had an echocardiography performed 3 months postoperatively. Complete echocardiographic data, to calculate left ventricular mass index, was available in 78% of the patients. The primary outcome for this substudy was prevalence and severity of PPM. Secondary outcomes were reduction in left ventricular mass index at 3 months follow-up and medium-term survival. Patients without PPM were defined as having an indexed effective orifice area greater than 0.85 cm(2)/m(2), and those with moderate and severe PPM as having an indexed effective orifice area between 0.65 cm(2)/m(2) and 0.85 cm(2)/m(2) or below 0.65 cm(2)/m(2), respectively. RESULTS: PPM was found in 217 (82%) patients. No difference in overall survival was found between patients with PPM and those without PPM. The change in left ventricular mass index was significantly different between groups (no PPM -31.4 ± 28.0 g/m(2), moderate PPM 1.1 ± 34.4 g/m(2), and severe PPM -5.9 ± 29.7 g/m(2), respectively (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of PPM did not influence medium-term survival. However, patients without PPM showed a marked reduction in left ventricular mass index as soon as 3 months postoperatively.

Pulmonary perfusion with oxygenated blood or custodiol HTK solution during cardiac surgery for postoperative pulmonary function in COPD patients: a trial protocol for the randomized, clinical, parallel group, assessor and data analyst blinded Pulmonary Protection Trial.

BACKGROUND: Five to thirty percent of patients undergoing cardiac surgery present with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and have a 2- to 10-fold higher 30-day mortality risk. Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) creates a whole body systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) that could impair pulmonary function. Impaired pulmonary function can, however, be attenuated by pulmonary perfusion with oxygenated blood or custodiol HTK (histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate) solution. METHODS/DESIGN: The Pulmonary Protection Trial (PP-Trial) randomizes 90 patients undergoing CPB-dependent cardiac surgery to evaluate whether pulmonary perfusion with oxygenated blood or custodiol HTK solution reduces postoperative pulmonary dysfunction in COPD patients. Further, we aim for a non-randomized evaluation of postoperative pulmonary function after transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI). The primary outcome measure is the oxygenation index measured from anesthesia induction to the end of surgery and until 24 hours after anesthesia induction for a total of six evaluations. DISCUSSION: Patients with COPD may be impaired by hypoxemia and SIRS. Thus, prolonged recovery and even postoperative complications and death may be reflected by the degree of hypoxemia and SIRS. The limited sample size does not aim for confirmatory conclusions on mortality, cardiovascular complications or risk of pneumonia and sepsis, but the PP-Trial is considered an important feasibility trial paving the road for a multicenter confirmatory trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01614951.

Hypercoagulability in relation to coronary artery bypass graft patency and clinical outcome.

OBJECTIVE: Hypercoagulability evaluated with thrombelastography (TEG) has been reported to be associated to thrombembolic events in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that graft patency and post-CABG thrombembolic events are related to the pre-surgical TEG status. DESIGN: 124 patients scheduled for CABG were matched according to mean age, gender and mean left ventricular ejection fraction in two groups defined by their pre-surgical TEG status (TEG-hypercoagulable and TEG-normocoagulable). Three months after the operation graft patency was assessed with multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). Major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events (MACCE) were recorded for a median period of 7 months (range 3 to 37 months) after CABG. RESULTS: A total of 359 grafts were analyzed, 186 in TEG-hypercoagulable and 173 in TEG-normocoagulable patients. Frequency of bypass graft occlusion was not significantly different between the two groups (TEG-hypercoagulable = 21 and TEG-normocoagulable = 18, p = 0.9). The number of MACCE was significantly higher in the TEG-hypercoagulable compared to the TEG-normocoagulable group (TEG-hypercoagulable = 30% and TEG-normocoagulable = 9% p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Hypercoagulability, as evaluated by TEG in patients undergoing CABG is associated with an increased risk of post-surgical thrombembolic events, however not accompanied by augmented coronary bypass graft failure.