A Multimodal Cardioprotection Strategy During Cardiac Surgery: The ProCCard Study.

OBJECTIVE: The ProCCard study tested whether combining several cardioprotective interventions would reduce the myocardial and other biological and clinical damage in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Multicenter tertiary care hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 210 patients scheduled to undergo aortic valve surgery. INTERVENTIONS: A control group (standard of care) was compared to a treated group combining five perioperative cardioprotective techniques: anesthesia with sevoflurane, remote ischemic preconditioning, close intraoperative blood glucose control, moderate respiratory acidosis (pH 7.30) just before aortic unclamping (concept of the "pH paradox"), and gentle reperfusion just after aortic unclamping. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was the postoperative 72-h area under the curve (AUC) for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hsTnI). Secondary endpoints were biological markers and clinical events occurring during the 30 postoperative days and the prespecified subgroup analyses. The linear relationship between the 72-h AUC for hsTnI and aortic clamping time, significant in both groups (p < 0.0001), was not modified by the treatment (p = 0.57). The rate of adverse events at 30 days was identical. A non-significant reduction of the 72-h AUC for hsTnI (-24%, p = 0.15) was observed when sevoflurane was administered during cardiopulmonary bypass (46% of patients in the treated group). The incidence of postoperative renal failure was not reduced (p = 0.104). CONCLUSION: This multimodal cardioprotection has not demonstrated any biological or clinical benefit during cardiac surgery. The cardio- and reno-protective effects of sevoflurane and remote ischemic preconditioning therefore remain to be demonstrated in this context.

Fractional Flow Reserve to Guide Treatment of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence that fractional flow reserve (FFR) is effective in guiding therapeutic strategy in multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) beyond prespecified percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary graft surgery candidates. OBJECTIVES: The FUTURE (FUnctional Testing Underlying coronary REvascularization) trial aimed to evaluate whether a treatment strategy based on FFR was superior to a traditional strategy without FFR in the treatment of multivessel CAD. METHODS: The FUTURE trial is a prospective, randomized, open-label superiority trial. Multivessel CAD candidates were randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment strategy based on FFR in all stenotic (≥50%) coronary arteries or to a traditional strategy without FFR. In the FFR group, revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention or surgery) was indicated for FFR ≤0.80 lesions. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 1 year. RESULTS: The trial was stopped prematurely by the data safety and monitoring board after a safety analysis and 927 patients were enrolled. At 1-year follow-up, by intention to treat, there were no significant differences in major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events rates between groups (14.6% in the FFR group vs 14.4% in the control group; hazard ratio: 0.97; 95% confidence interval: 0.69-1.36; P = 0.85). The difference in all-cause mortality was nonsignificant, 3.7% in the FFR group versus 1.5% in the control group (hazard ratio: 2.34; 95% confidence interval: 0.97-5.18; P = 0.06), and this was confirmed with a 24 months' extended follow-up. FFR significantly reduced the proportion of revascularized patients, with more patients referred to exclusively medical treatment (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with multivessel CAD, we did not find evidence that an FFR-guided treatment strategy reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death at 1-year follow-up. (Functional Testing Underlying Coronary Revascularisation; NCT01881555).

The MITRA-FR study: design and rationale of a randomised study of percutaneous mitral valve repair compared with optimal medical management alone for severe secondary mitral regurgitation.

AIMS: Percutaneous mitral valve repair (pMVR) is a new therapeutic option for mitral valve regurgitation. Positive preliminary results in non-randomised studies have been published supporting the use of the MitraClip system in patients with secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) and poor left ventricular (LV) function contraindicated to surgery. The aim of the MITRA-FR study is to provide a higher level of evidence for the efficacy of the MitraClip device in this setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: The MITRA-FR study is a national, multicentre, investigator-initiated, open-label, randomised trial to evaluate the benefits and safety of pMVR using the MitraClip system plus optimal medical therapy (OMT) compared with OMT alone (control) in patients with severe symptomatic secondary MR contraindicated to surgical repair. The trial aims to enrol 144 MitraClip-treated subjects and 144 control (OMT alone) patients. The primary endpoint is a composite of all-cause mortality and unplanned hospitalisations for heart failure at 12 months after randomisation CONCLUSIONS: MITRA-FR is a randomised controlled national trial designed to evaluate the performance of pMVR in comparison to OMT in patients with severe symptomatic secondary MR contraindicated to cardiac surgery.

[Public clinical trials: which kind of monitoring should be used?]. / Essais cliniques institutionnels : quel monitoring ?

OBJECTIVE: Sponsors must take responsibility for the quality of trials at the best possible cost. Our objective was to describe the most frequent quality failures, how they impact trial results, and identify the most efficient monitoring strategies using published articles and reports. RESULTS: Errors affecting clinical trials include conception, procedures, data management, and data analysis. The consequences are usually an overestimation of the treatment effect. No study shows that monitoring reduces the risk of errors, and there is no comparison of monitoring methods. Many research organisations advocate for monitoring based on risk analysis and recommend an extensive use of centralised monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Trial quality depends on trial conception and design. Study conduct should guarantee a maximum level of quality level. This should be done using risk management and extensive centralised monitoring.