Detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific mucosal antibodies in saliva following concomitant COVID-19 and influenza vaccination in the ComFluCOV trial.

The ComFluCOV trial randomized 679 participants to receive an age-appropriate influenza vaccine, or placebo, alongside their second COVID-19 vaccine. Concomitant administration was shown to be safe, and to preserve systemic immune responses to both vaccines. Here we report on a secondary outcome of the trial investigating SARS-CoV-2-specific mucosal antibody responses. Anti-spike IgG and IgA levels in saliva were measured with in-house ELISAs. Concomitant administration of an influenza vaccine did not affect salivary anti-spike IgG positivity rates to Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 (99.1 cf. 95.6%), or AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 (67.8% cf. 64.9%), at 3-weeks post-vaccination relative to placebo. Furthermore, saliva IgG positively correlated with serum titres highlighting the potential utility of saliva for assessing differences in immunogenicity in future vaccine studies. Mucosal IgA was not detected in response to either COVID-19 vaccine, reinforcing the need for novel vaccines capable of inducing sterilising immunity or otherwise reducing transmission. The trial is registered as ISRCTN 14391248.

Adalimumab vs placebo as add-on to Standard Therapy for autoimmune Uveitis: Tolerability, Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness-a protocol for a randomised controlled trial (ASTUTE trial).

INTRODUCTION: Adalimumab is an effective treatment for autoimmune non-infectious uveitis (ANIU), but it is currently only funded for a minority of patients with ANIU in the UK as it is restricted by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. Ophthalmologists believe that adalimumab may be effective in a wider range of patients. The Adalimumab vs placebo as add-on to Standard Therapy for autoimmune Uveitis: Tolerability, Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness (ASTUTE) trial will recruit patients with ANIU who do and do not meet funding criteria and will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab versus placebo as an add-on therapy to standard care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The ASTUTE trial is a multicentre, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, pragmatic randomised controlled trial with a 16-week treatment run-in (TRI). At the end of the TRI, only responders will be randomised (1:1) to 40 mg adalimumab or placebo (both are the study investigational medicinal product) self-administered fortnightly by subcutaneous injection. The target sample size is 174 randomised participants. The primary outcome is time to treatment failure (TF), a composite of signs indicative of active ANIU. Secondary outcomes include individual TF components, retinal morphology, adverse events, health-related quality of life, patient-reported side effects and visual function, best-corrected visual acuity, employment status and resource use. In the event of TF, open-label drug treatment will be restarted as per TRI for 16 weeks, and if a participant responds again, allocation will be switched without unmasking and treatment with investigational medicinal product restarted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial received Research Ethics Committee (REC) approval from South Central - Oxford B REC in June 2020. The findings will be presented at international meetings, by peer-reviewed publications and through patient organisations and newsletters to patients, where available. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN31474800. Registered 14 April 2020.

Delivering COVID-19 vaccine trials at speed: the implementation of a phase IV UK multi-centre randomised controlled trial to determine safety and immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines co-administered with seasonal influenza vaccines (ComFluCOV).

BACKGROUND: In February 2021, the UK Department of Health and Social Care sought evidence on the safety and immunogenicity of COVID-19 and influenza vaccine co-administration to inform the 2021/2022 influenza vaccine policy. Co-administration could support vaccine uptake and reduce healthcare appointments. ComFluCOV was a randomised controlled trial designed to provide this evidence. This report outlines the methods used to deliver the trial in 6 months to answer an urgent public health question as part of the COVID-19 pandemic response. METHODS: ComFluCOV was commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Care and was managed by the Bristol Trials Centre, a UK-registered clinical trials unit. It was classed as an Urgent Public Health trial which facilitated fast-track regulatory approvals. Trial materials and databases were developed using in-house templates and those used in other COVID-19 vaccine trials. Participants were recruited by advertising, and via a trial website. Electronic trial systems enabled daily review of participant data. Weekly virtual meetings were held with stakeholders and trial sites. RESULTS: ComFluCOV was delivered within 6 months from inception to reporting, and trial milestones to inform the Department of Health and Social Care policy were met. Set-up was achieved within 1 month. Regulators provided expedited reviews, with feedback ahead of submission. Recruitment took place at 12 sites. Over 380 site staff were trained. Overall, 679 participants were recruited in two months. The final report to the Department of Health and Social Care was submitted in September 2021, following a preliminary safety report in May 2021. Trial results have been published. CONCLUSION: The rapid delivery of ComFluCOV was resource intensive. It was made possible in part due to a unique set of circumstances created by the pandemic situation including measures put in place to support urgent public health research and public support for COVID-19 vaccine research. Elements of the trial could be adopted to increase efficiency in 'non-pandemic' situations including working with a clinical trials unit to enable immediate mobilisation of a team of experienced researchers, greater sharing of resources between clinical trials units, use of electronic trial systems and virtual meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14391248, submitted on 17/03/2021. Registered on 30/03/2021.

Working under short timescales to deliver a national trial: a case study of the ComFluCOV trial from a statistician's perspective.

BACKGROUND: In early 2021, the Department of Health and Social Care in the UK called for research on the safety and immunogenicity of concomitant administration of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines. Co-administration of these vaccines would facilitate uptake and reduce the number of healthcare visits required. The ComFluCOV trial was designed to deliver the necessary evidence in time to inform the autumn (September-November) 2021 vaccination policy. This paper presents the statistical methodology applied to help successfully deliver the trial results in 6 months. METHODS: ComFluCOV was a parallel-group multicentre randomised controlled trial managed by the Bristol Trials Centre. Two study statisticians, supported by a senior statistician, worked together on all statistical tasks. Tools were developed to aid the pre-screening process. Automated data monitoring reports of clinic data and electronic diaries were produced daily and reviewed by the trial team and feedback provided to sites. Analyses were performed independently in parallel, and derivations and results of all outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Set-up was achieved in less than a month, and 679 participants were recruited over 8 weeks. A total of 537 [at least] daily reports outlining recruitment, protocol adherence, and data quality, and 695 daily reports of participant electronic diaries identifying any missed diary entries and adverse events were produced over a period of 16 weeks. A preliminary primary outcome analysis of validated data was reported to the Department of Health and Social Care in May 2021. The database was locked 6 weeks after the final participant follow-up and final analyses completed 3 weeks later. A pre-print publication was submitted within 14 days of the results being made available. The results were reported 6 months after first discussions about the trial. CONCLUSION: The statistical methodologies implemented in ComFluCOV helped to deliver the study in the timescale set. Working in a new clinical area to tight timescales was challenging. Having two statisticians working together on the study provided a quality assurance process that enabled analyses to be completed efficiently and ensured data were interpreted correctly. Processes developed could be applied to other studies to maximise quality, reduce the risk of errors, and overall provide enhanced validation methods. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14391248, registered on 30 March 2021.

Multimodality local consolidative treatment versus conventional care of advanced lung cancer after first-line systemic anti-cancer treatment: study protocol for the RAMON multicentre randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death worldwide and most patients present with extensive disease. One-year survival is improving but remains low (37%) despite novel systemic anti-cancer treatments forming the current standard of care. Although new therapies improve survival, most patients have residual disease after treatment, and little is known on how best to manage it. Therefore, residual disease management varies across the UK, with some patients receiving only maintenance systemic anti-cancer treatment while others receive local consolidative treatment (LCT), alongside maintenance systemic anti-cancer treatment. LCT can be a combination of surgery, radiotherapy and/or ablation to remove all remaining cancer within the lung and throughout the body. This is intensive, expensive and impacts quality of life, but we do not know if it results in better survival, nor the extent of impact on quality of life and what the cost might be for healthcare providers. The RAMON study (RAdical Management Of Advanced Non-small cell lung cancer) will evaluate the acceptability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LCT versus no LCT after first-line systemic treatment for advanced lung cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: RAMON is a pragmatic open multicentre, parallel group, superiority randomised controlled trial. We aim to recruit 244 patients aged 18 years and over with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer from 40 UK NHS hospitals. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive LCT alongside maintenance treatment, or maintenance treatment alone. LCT will be tailored to each patient's specific disease sites. Participants will be followed up for a minimum of 2 years. The primary outcome is overall survival from randomisation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee (22/WS/0121) gave ethical approval in August 2022 and the Health Research Authority in September 2022. Participants will provide written informed consent before participating in the study. Findings will be presented at international meetings, in peer-reviewed publications, through patient organisations and notifications to patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11613852.

Safety and immunogenicity of concomitant administration of COVID-19 vaccines (ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2) with seasonal influenza vaccines in adults in the UK (ComFluCOV): a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 4 trial.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant administration of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines could reduce burden on health-care systems. We aimed to assess the safety of concomitant administration of ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 plus an age-appropriate influenza vaccine. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 4 trial, adults in receipt of a single dose of ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 were enrolled at 12 UK sites and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive concomitant administration of either an age-appropriate influenza vaccine or placebo alongside their second dose of COVID-19 vaccine. 3 weeks later the group who received placebo received the influenza vaccine, and vice versa. Participants were followed up for 6 weeks. The influenza vaccines were three seasonal, inactivated vaccines (trivalent, MF59C adjuvanted or a cellular or recombinant quadrivalent vaccine). Participants and investigators were masked to the allocation. The primary endpoint was one or more participant-reported solicited systemic reactions in the 7 days after first trial vaccination(s), with a difference of less than 25% considered non-inferior. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. Local and unsolicited systemic reactions and humoral responses were also assessed. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN14391248. FINDINGS: Between April 1 and June 26, 2021, 679 participants were recruited to one of six cohorts, as follows: 129 ChAdOx1 plus cellular quadrivalent influenza vaccine, 139 BNT162b2 plus cellular quadrivalent influenza vaccine, 146 ChAdOx1 plus MF59C adjuvanted, trivalent influenza vaccine, 79 BNT162b2 plus MF59C adjuvanted, trivalent influenza vaccine, 128 ChAdOx1 plus recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine, and 58 BNT162b2 plus recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine. 340 participants were assigned to concomitant administration of influenza and a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine at day 0 followed by placebo at day 21, and 339 participants were randomly assigned to concomitant administration of placebo and a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine at day 0 followed by influenza vaccine at day 21. Non-inferiority was indicated in four cohorts, as follows: ChAdOx1 plus cellular quadrivalent influenza vaccine (risk difference for influenza vaccine minus placebos -1·29%, 95% CI -14·7 to 12·1), BNT162b2 plus cellular quadrivalent influenza vaccine (6·17%, -6·27 to 18·6), BNT162b2 plus MF59C adjuvanted, trivalent influenza vaccine (-12·9%, -34·2 to 8·37), and ChAdOx1 plus recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine (2·53%, -13·3 to 18·3). In the other two cohorts, the upper limit of the 95% CI exceeded the 0·25 non-inferiority margin (ChAdOx1 plus MF59C adjuvanted, trivalent influenza vaccine 10·3%, -5·44 to 26·0; BNT162b2 plus recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine 6·75%, -11·8 to 25·3). Most systemic reactions to vaccination were mild or moderate. Rates of local and unsolicited systemic reactions were similar between the randomly assigned groups. One serious adverse event, hospitalisation with severe headache, was considered related to the trial intervention. Immune responses were not adversely affected. INTERPRETATION: Concomitant vaccination with ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 plus an age-appropriate influenza vaccine raises no safety concerns and preserves antibody responses to both vaccines. Concomitant vaccination with both COVID-19 and influenza vaccines over the next immunisation season should reduce the burden on health-care services for vaccine delivery, allowing for timely vaccine administration and protection from COVID-19 and influenza for those in need. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Policy Research Programme.

Pre-admission interventions (prehabilitation) to improve outcome after major elective surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the benefits and harms of pre-admission interventions (prehabilitation) on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing major elective surgery. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (published or unpublished). We searched Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, DARE, HTA and NHS EED, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsychINFO and ISI Web of Science (June 2020). SETTING: Secondary care. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (≥18 years) undergoing major elective surgery (curative or palliative). INTERVENTIONS: Any intervention administered in the preoperative period with the aim of improving postoperative outcomes. OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality, hospital length of stay (LoS) and postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes included LoS in intensive care unit or high dependency unit, perioperative morbidity, hospital readmission, postoperative pain, heath-related quality of life, outcomes specific to the intervention, intervention-specific adverse events and resource use. REVIEW METHODS: Two authors independently extracted data from eligible RCTs and assessed risk of bias and the certainty of evidence using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to pool data across trials. RESULTS: 178 RCTs including eight types of intervention were included. Inspiratory muscle training (IMT), immunonutrition and multimodal interventions reduced hospital LoS (mean difference vs usual care: -1.81 days, 95% CI -2.31 to -1.31; -2.11 days, 95% CI -3.07 to -1.15; -1.67 days, 95% CI -2.31 to -1.03, respectively). Immunonutrition reduced infective complications (risk ratio (RR) 0.64 95% CI 0.40 to 1.01) and IMT, and exercise reduced postoperative pulmonary complications (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.80, and RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.75, respectively). Smoking cessation interventions reduced wound infections (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.64). CONCLUSIONS: Some prehabilitation interventions may reduce postoperative LoS and complications but the quality of the evidence was low. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015019191.

Pharmacodynamic Comparison of Ticagrelor Monotherapy Versus Ticagrelor and Aspirin in Patients After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The TEMPLATE (Ticagrelor Monotherapy and Platelet Reactivity) Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background To assess differences in platelet inhibition during ticagrelor monotherapy (TIC) or dual therapy with ticagrelor and aspirin (TIC+ASP) in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention using a comprehensive panel of functional tests. Methods and Results In a single-center parallel group, open label, randomized controlled trial, 110 participants were randomized to receive either TIC (n=55) or TIC+ASP (n=55) for 4 weeks. The primary outcome was the platelet aggregation response with 10 µmol/L thrombin receptor activation peptide-6 (TRAP-6). The secondary outcomes were platelet aggregation responses and binding of surface activation markers with a panel of other activators. The mean percentage aggregation for 10 µmol/L TRAP-6 was similar for the TIC and TIC+ASP groups (mean difference+4.29; 95% CI, -0.87 to +9.46). Aggregation was higher in the TIC group compared with the TIC+ASP group with 1 µg/mL (+6.47; +2.04 to +10.90) and 0.5 µg/mL (+14.00; +7.63 to +20.39) collagen related peptide. Aggregation responses with 5 µmol/L TRAP-6, 5 µmol/L or 2.5 µmol/L thromboxane A2 receptor agonist and surface activation marker binding with 5 µmol/L TRAP-6 or 0.5 µg/mL collagen related peptide were the same between the treatment groups. Conclusions Patients with PCI show similar levels of inhibition of most platelet activation pathways with TIC compared with dual therapy with TIC + ASP. However, the greater aggregation response with collagen related peptide during TIC indicates incomplete inhibition of glycoprotein VI (collagen) receptor-mediated platelet activation. This difference in pharmacodynamic response to anti-platelet medication may contribute to the lower bleeding rates observed with TIC compared with dual antiplatelet therapy in recent clinical trials. Registration Information URL: https://www.isrctn.com; Unique Identifier ISRCTN84335288.

Effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of gabapentin versus placebo as an adjunct to multimodal pain regimens in surgical patients: protocol of a placebo controlled randomised controlled trial with blinding (GAP study).

INTRODUCTION: Gabapentin is an antiepileptic drug currently licensed to treat epilepsy and neuropathic pain but has been used off-label to treat acute postoperative pain. The GAP study will compare the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of gabapentin as an adjunct to standard multimodal analgesia versus placebo for the management of pain after major surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The GAP study is a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial in patients aged 18 years and over, undergoing different types of major surgery (cardiac, thoracic or abdominal). Patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either gabapentin (600 mg just before surgery and 600 mg/day for 2 days after surgery) or placebo in addition to usual pain management for each type of surgery. Patients will be followed up daily until hospital discharge and then at 4 weeks and 4 months after surgery. The primary outcome is length of hospital stay following surgery. Secondary outcomes include pain, total opioid use, adverse health events, health related quality of life and costs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Research Ethics Committee . Findings will be shared with participating hospitals and disseminated to the academic community through peer-reviewed publications and presentation at national and international meetings. Patients will be informed of the results through patient organisations and participant newsletters. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN63614165.

Normothermic versus hypothermic cardiopulmonary bypass in low-risk paediatric heart surgery: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare normothermic (35°C-36°C) versus hypothermic (28°C) cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) in paediatric patients undergoing open heart surgery to test the hypothesis that normothermic CPB perfusion maintains the functional integrity of major organ systems leading to faster recovery. METHODS: Two single-centre, randomised controlled trials (known as Thermic-1 and Thermic-2, respectively) were carried out to compare the effectiveness and acceptability of normothermic versus hypothermic CPB in children with congenital heart disease undergoing open heart surgery. In both studies, the co-primary clinical outcomes were duration of inotropic support, intubation time and postoperative hospital stay. RESULTS: In total, 200 participants were recruited; 59 to the Thermic-1 study and 141 to the Thermic-2 study. 98 patients received normothermic CPB and 102 patients received hypothermic CPB. There were no significant differences between the treatment groups for any of the co-primary outcomes: inotrope duration HR=1.01, 95% CI (0.72 to 1.41); intubation time HR=1.14, 95% CI (0.86 to 1.51); postoperative hospital stay HR=1.06, 95% CI (0.80 to 1.40). Differences favouring normothermia were found in urea nitrogen at 2 days geometric mean ratio (GMR)=0.86 95% CI (0.77 to 0.97); serum creatinine at 3 days GMR=0.89, 95% CI (0.81 to 0.98); urinary albumin at 48 hours GMR=0.32, 95% CI (0.14 to 0.74) and neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin at 4 hours GMR=0.47, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.02), but not at other postoperative time points. CONCLUSIONS: Normothermic CPB is as safe and effective as hypothermic CPB and can be routinely adopted as a perfusion strategy in low-risk infants and children undergoing open heart surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN93129502.

Investigating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of FITNET-NHS (Fatigue In Teenagers on the interNET in the NHS) compared to Activity Management to treat paediatric chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)/myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Paediatric chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is a relatively common and disabling condition. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommends Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) as a treatment option for paediatric CFS/ME because there is good evidence that it is effective. Despite this, most young people in the UK are unable to access local specialist CBT for CFS/ME. A randomised controlled trial (RCT) showed FITNET was effective in the Netherlands but we do not know if it is effective in the National Health Service (NHS) or if it is cost-effective. This trial will investigate whether FITNET-NHS is clinically effective and cost-effective in the NHS. METHODS: Seven hundred and thirty-four paediatric patients (aged 11-17 years) with CFS/ ME will be randomised (1:1) to receive either FITNET-NHS (online CBT) or Activity Management (delivered via video call). The internal pilot study will use integrated qualitative methods to examine the feasibility of recruitment and the acceptability of treatment. The full trial will assess whether FITNET-NHS is clinically effective and cost-effective. The primary outcome is disability at 6 months, measured using the SF-36-PFS (Physical Function Scale) questionnaire. Cost-effectiveness is measured via cost-utility analysis from an NHS perspective. Secondary subgroup analysis will investigate the effectiveness of FITNET-NHS in those with co-morbid mood disorders. DISCUSSION: If FITNET-NHS is found to be feasible and acceptable (internal pilot) and effective and cost-effective (full trial), its provision by the NHS has the potential to deliver substantial health gains for the large number of young people suffering from CFS/ME but unable to access treatment because there is no local specialist service. This trial will provide further evidence evaluating the delivery of online CBT to young people with chronic conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, registration number: ISRCTN18020851 . Registered on 4 August 2016.

Platelet inhibition during ticagrelor monotherapy versus ticagrelor plus aspirin in patients with coronary artery disease (TEMPLATE study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin (ASP) and a P2Y12 blocker is currently standard care after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent insertion, and aims to inhibit platelet function in order to prevent stent thrombosis. The P2Y12 blocker ticagrelor (TIC) has greater antiplatelet effect than the previously used members of this class, such as clopidogrel. In healthy volunteers, TIC is sufficient to cause strong platelet inhibition, with little additional effect from ASP. Omission of ASP may improve the safety of antiplatelet regimes by reducing bleeding. However, the effect of single antiplatelet treatment with TIC, compared to DAPT with TIC + ASP, has not been studied in detail in patients with coronary artery disease. METHODS: To compare TIC with TIC + ASP, we have initiated a single centre, open-label randomised controlled trial (TEMPLATE study) in adults receiving DAPT following PCI with a sample size of 110 patients. Patients are invited to join the study when, as part of standard care, they are due to switch from DAPT (ASP + any P2Y12 blocker) to single antiplatelet treatment with ASP alone after 6-12 months. Patients are randomised to receive either TIC or TIC + ASP for 4 weeks. All patients then revert to standard care with ASP alone. Blood samples and clinical data are collected at three study visits: at baseline during treatment with ASP + any P2Y12 blocker (visit 1); approximately 4 weeks after visit 1 during treatment with either TIC or TIC + ASP (visit 2); and approximately 8 weeks after visit 1 when treatment has reverted to ASP alone (visit 3). The primary outcome is the extent of platelet inhibition, measured by light transmission aggregation, flow cytometry, flow chamber and plasma biomarker tests. The primary analysis will compare the extent of platelet inhibition between the TIC and TIC + ASP groups at visit 2, adjusted for baseline platelet reactivity. Secondary analyses will compare the extent of platelet inhibition at visit 2 with that at visit 3. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to compare in detail the extent of platelet inhibition in patients who are receiving TIC compared with TIC + ASP. The study findings will complement larger-scale trials of the clinical efficacy and safety of TIC compared to TIC + ASP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, identifier ISRCTN84335288 . Registered on 23 June 2014.

Propofol cardioplegia: A single-center, placebo-controlled, randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass and cardioplegic arrest is an effective treatment for coronary artery and aortic valve diseases. However, the myocardium sustains reperfusion injury after ischemic cardioplegic arrest. Our objective was to assess the benefits of supplementing cardioplegia solution with the general anesthetic propofol in patients undergoing either coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or aortic valve replacement (AVR). METHODS: A single-center, double-blind randomized controlled trial was carried out to compare cardioplegia solution supplemented with propofol (concentration 6 µg/mL) versus intralipid (placebo). The primary outcome was cardiac troponin T release over the first 48 hours after surgery. RESULTS: We recruited 101 participants (51 in the propofol group, 50 in the intralipid group); 61 underwent CABG and 40 underwent AVR. All participants were followed to 3 months. Cardiac troponin T release was on average 15% lower with propofol supplementation (geometric mean ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-1.01; P = .051). There were no differences for CABG participants but propofol-supplemented participants undergoing AVR had poorer postoperative renal function (geometric mean ratio, 1.071; 95% CI, 1.019-1.125; P = .007), with a trend toward longer intensive care stay (median, 89.5 vs 47.0 hours; hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.31-1.09; P = .09) and fewer with perfect health (based on the EQ-5D health utility index) at 3 months (odds ratio, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.06-1.05; P = .058) compared with the intralipid group. Safety profiles were similar. There were no deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Propofol supplementation in cardioplegia appears to be cardioprotective. Its influence on early clinical outcomes may differ between CABG and AVR surgery. A larger, multicenter study is needed to confirm or refute these suggestions.

Normothermic versus hypothermic cardiopulmonary bypass in children undergoing open heart surgery (thermic-2): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: During open heart surgery, patients are connected to a heart-lung bypass machine that pumps blood around the body ("perfusion") while the heart is stopped. Typically the blood is cooled during this procedure ("hypothermia") and warmed to normal body temperature once the operation has been completed. The main rationale for "whole body cooling" is to protect organs such as the brain, kidneys, lungs, and heart from injury during bypass by reducing the body's metabolic rate and decreasing oxygen consumption. However, hypothermic perfusion also has disadvantages that can contribute toward an extended postoperative hospital stay. Research in adults and small randomized controlled trials in children suggest some benefits to keeping the blood at normal body temperature throughout surgery ("normothermia"). However, the two techniques have not been extensively compared in children. OBJECTIVE: The Thermic-2 study will test the hypothesis that the whole body inflammatory response to the nonphysiological bypass and its detrimental effects on different organ functions may be attenuated by maintaining the body at 35°C-37°C (normothermic) rather than 28°C (hypothermic) during pediatric complex open heart surgery. METHODS: This is a single-center, randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and acceptability of normothermic versus hypothermic bypass in 141 children with congenital heart disease undergoing open heart surgery. Children having scheduled surgery to repair a heart defect not requiring deep hypothermic circulatory arrest represent the target study population. The co-primary clinical outcomes are duration of inotropic support, intubation time, and postoperative hospital stay. Secondary outcomes are in-hospital mortality and morbidity, blood loss and transfusion requirements, pre- and post-operative echocardiographic findings, routine blood gas and blood test results, renal function, cerebral function, regional oxygen saturation of blood in the cerebral cortex, assessment of genomic expression changes in cardiac tissue biopsies, and neuropsychological development. RESULTS: A total of 141 patients have been successfully randomized over 2 years and 10 months and are now being followed-up for 1 year. Results will be published in 2015. CONCLUSIONS: We believe this to be the first large pragmatic study comparing clinical outcomes during normothermic versus hypothermic bypass in complex open heart surgery in children. It is expected that this work will provide important information to improve strategies of cardiopulmonary bypass perfusion and therefore decrease the inevitable organ damage that occurs during nonphysiological body perfusion. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN93129502, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN93129502 (Archived by WebCitation at http://www.webcitation.org/6Yf5VSyyG).

The effects of propofol cardioplegia on blood and myocardial biomarkers of stress and injury in patients with isolated coronary artery bypass grafting or aortic valve replacement using cardiopulmonary bypass: protocol for a single-center randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite improved myocardial protection strategies, cardioplegic arrest and ischemia still result in reperfusion injury. We have previously published a study describing the effects of propofol (an anesthetic agent commonly used in cardiac surgery) on metabolic stress, cardiac function, and injury in a clinically relevant animal model. We concluded that cardioplegia supplementation with propofol at a concentration relevant to the human clinical setting resulted in improved hemodynamic function, reduced oxidative stress, and reduced reperfusion injury when compared to standard cardioplegia. OBJECTIVE: The Propofol cardioplegia for Myocardial Protection Trial (ProMPT) aims to translate the successful animal intervention to the human clinical setting. We aim to test the hypothesis that supplementation of the cardioplegic solution with propofol will be cardioprotective for patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass graft or aortic valve replacement surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. METHODS: The trial is a single-center, placebo-controlled, randomized trial with blinding of participants, health care staff, and the research team. Patients aged between 18 and 80 years undergoing nonemergency isolated coronary artery bypass graft or aortic valve replacement surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass at the Bristol Heart Institute are being invited to participate. Participants are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either cardioplegia supplementation with propofol (intervention) or cardioplegia supplementation with intralipid (placebo) using a secure, concealed, Internet-based randomization system. Randomization is stratified by operation type and minimized by diabetes mellitus status. Biomarkers of cardiac injury and metabolism are being assessed to investigate any cardioprotection conferred. The primary outcome is myocardial injury, studied by measuring myocardial troponin T. The trial is designed to test hypotheses about the superiority of the intervention within each surgical stratum. The sample size of 96 participants has been chosen to achieve 80% power to detect standardized differences of 0.5 at a significance level of 5% (2-tailed) assuming equal numbers in each surgical stratum. RESULTS: A total of 96 patients have been successfully recruited over a 2-year period. Results are to be published in late 2014. CONCLUSIONS: Designing a practicable method for delivering a potentially protective dose of propofol to the heart during cardiac surgery was challenging. If our approach confirms the potential of propofol to reduce damage during cardiac surgery, we plan to design a larger multicenter trial to detect differences in clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 84968882; http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN84968882/ProMPT (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6Qi8A51BS).