Maria Wittmann

A Multicenter Trial of Remote Ischemic Preconditioning for Heart Surgery

BACKGROUND Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) is reported to reduce biomarkers of ischemic and reperfusion injury in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, but uncertainty about clinical outcomes remains. METHODS We conducted a prospective, double-blind, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving adults who were scheduled for elective cardiac surgery requiring cardiopulmonary bypass under total anesthesia with intravenous propofol. The trial compared upper-limb RIPC with a sham intervention. The primary end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or acute renal failure up to the time of hospital discharge. Secondary end points included the occurrence of any individual component of the primary end point by day 90. RESULTS A total of 1403 patients underwent randomization. The full analysis set comprised 1385 patients (692 in the RIPC group and 693 in the sham-RIPC group). There was no significant between-group difference in the rate of the composite primary end point (99 patients [14.3%] in the RIPC group and 101 [14.6%] in the sham-RIPC group, P=0.89) or of any of the individual components: death (9 patients [1.3%] and 4 [0.6%], respectively; P=0.21), myocardial infarction (47 [6.8%] and 63 [9.1%], P=0.12), stroke (14 [2.0%] and 15 [2.2%], P=0.79), and acute renal failure (42 [6.1%] and 35 [5.1%], P=0.45). The results were similar in the per-protocol analysis. No treatment effect was found in any subgroup analysis. No significant differences between the RIPC group and the sham-RIPC group were seen in the level of troponin release, the duration of mechanical ventilation, the length of stay in the intensive care unit or the hospital, new onset of atrial fibrillation, and the incidence of postoperative delirium. No RIPC-related adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS Upper-limb RIPC performed while patients were under propofol-induced anesthesia did not show a relevant benefit among patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery. (Funded by the German Research Foundation; RIPHeart ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01067703.).

Patient Blood Management is Associated With a Substantial Reduction of Red Blood Cell Utilization and Safe for Patient's Outcome: A Prospective, Multicenter Cohort Study With a Noninferiority Design.

Objective: To determine whether the implementation of patient blood management (PBM) is effective to decrease the use of red blood cell without impairment of patients safety. Background: The World Health Organization encouraged all member states to implement PBM programs employing multiple combined strategies to increase and preserve autologous erythrocyte volume to minimize red blood cell transfusions. Data regarding safety issues are not sufficiently available. Methods: In this prospective, multicenter study, surgical inpatients from four German University Hospitals were analyzed before (pre-PBM) and after the implementation of PBM. PBM program included multiple measures (ie, preoperative optimization of hemoglobin levels, blood-sparing techniques, and standardization of transfusion practice). Primary aim was to show noninferiority of the PBM cohort with a margin of 0.5%. Secondary endpoints included red blood cell utilization. Results: A total of 129,719 patients discharged between July 2012 and June 2015 with different inclusion periods for pre-PBM (54,513 patients) and PBM (75,206 patients) were analyzed. The primary endpoint was 6.53% in the pre-PBM versus 6.34% in the PBM cohort. The noninferiority aim was achieved (P < 0.001). Incidence of acute renal failure decreased in the PBM cohort (2.39% vs 1.67%; P < 0.001, regression model). The mean number of red blood cell transfused per patient was reduced from 1.21 ± 0.05 to 1.00 ± 0.05 (relative change by 17%, P < 0.001). Conclusions: The data presented show that implementation of PBM with a more conscious handling of transfusion practice can be achieved even in large hospitals without impairment of patients safety. Further studies should elucidate which PBM measures are most clinically and cost effective. Trial Registration: PBM-Study ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01820949

Safety and economic considerations of argatroban use in critically ill patients: a retrospective analysis

BackgroundHeparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) causes thromboembolic complications which threaten life and limb. Heparin is administered to virtually every critically ill patient as a protective measure against thromboembolism. Argatroban is a promising alternative anticoagulant agent. However, a safe dose which still provides effective thromboembolic prophylaxis without major bleeding still needs to be identified.MethodsCritically ill patients (n = 42) diagnosed with HIT at a tertiary medical center intensive care unit from 2005 to 2010 were included in this retrospective analysis. Patient records were perused for preexisting history of HIT, heparin dosage before HIT, argatroban dosage, number of transfusions required, thromboembolic complications and length of ICU stay (ICU LOS). Patients were allocated to Simplified Acute Physiology Scores above and below 30 (SAPS >30, SAPS <30), respectively. For calculations, patients (n = 19) without previous history of HIT were compared to patients (n = 23) with a history of HIT before initiation of argatroban.ResultsThe mean initial argatroban dosage was below 0.4 mcg/kg/min regardless of SAPS score. Maintenance dosage had to be increased in patients with SAPS <30 to 0.54 ± 0.248 mcg/kg/min (p >0.05) to achieve effective anticoagulation. No thromboembolic complications were encountered. Argatroban had to be discontinued temporarily in 16 patients for a total of 57 times due to diagnostic or surgical procedures, supratherapeutic aPTT and bleeding without increasing the number of transfusions. A history of HIT was associated with a shorter ICU LOS and significantly reduced transfusion need when compared to patients with no history of HIT. Cost calculation favour argatroban due to increased transfusion needs during heparin administration and increase ICU LOS.ConclusionArgatroban can be used at doses < 0.4 mcg/kg/min without an increase in transfusion requirements and at a reduced overall treatment cost compared to heparin.

Effects of prehospital hypothermia on transfusion requirements and outcomes: a retrospective observatory trial.

Objectives Prehospital hypothermia is defined as a core temperature <36.0°C and has been shown to be an independent risk factor for early death in patients with trauma. In a retrospective study, a possible correlation between the body temperature at the time of admission to the emergency room and subsequent in-hospital transfusion requirements and the in-hospital mortality rate was explored. Setting This is a retrospective single-centre study at a primary care hospital in Germany. Participants 15 895 patients were included in this study. Patients were classified by admission temperature and transfusion rate. Excluded were ambulant patients and patients with missing data. Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome values were length of stay (LOS) in days, in-hospital mortality, the transferred amount of packed red blood cells (PRBCs), and admission to an intensive care unit. Secondary influencing variables were the patients age and the Glasgow Coma Scale. Results In 22.85% of the patients, hypothermia was documented. Hypothermic patients died earlier in the course of their hospital stay than non-hypothermic patients (p<0.001). The administration of 1–3 PRBC increased the LOS significantly (p<0.001) and transfused patients had an increased risk of death (p<0.001). Prehospital hypothermia could be an independent risk factor for mortality (adjusted OR 8.521; p=0.001) and increases the relative risk for transfusion by factor 2.0 (OR 2.007; p=0.002). Conclusions Low body temperature at hospital admission is associated with a higher risk of transfusion and death. Hence, a greater awareness of prehospital temperature management should be established.

Sinus venous thrombosis: a differential diagnosis of postpartum headache

In this report, we describe a patient who developed severe headache following epidural analgesia for labor and delivery. Although the epidural puncture had been reported to be uneventful, headache was initially suspected to result from an accidental dural puncture. After the headache worsened, a sinus venous thrombosis was suspected and subsequently confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging. This case highlights the difficulty of differential diagnosis of headache in the postnatal period in patients after EDA and stresses the necessity of considering alternative pathologies.

Cost-efficiency of knowledge creation: randomized controlled trials vs. observational studies.

Purpose of review This article reviews traditional and current perspectives on randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies relative to the economic implications for public healthcare stakeholders. Recent findings It takes an average of 17 years to bring 14% of original research into clinical practice. Results from high-quality observational studies may complement limited RCTs in primary and secondary literature bases, and enhance the incorporation of sound evidence-based guidelines. Observational findings from comprehensive medical databases may offer valuable clues on the effectiveness and relevance of public healthcare interventions. Major expenditures associated with RCTs relate to recruitment, inappropriate site selection, conduct and reporting. Application of business strategies and economic evaluation tools, in addition to the planning and conduct of RCTs, may enhance clinical trial site performances. Summary Considering the strengths and limitations of each study type, clinical researchers should explore the contextual worthiness of either design in promulgating knowledge. They should focus on quality of conduct and reporting that may allow for the liberation of limited public and private clinical research funding

ESA Clinical Trials Network 2012.

The European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) has been promoting research for a long time, but the idea to establish the ESA Clinical Trials Network (ESA-CTN) matured only recently. The first decision was to start with observational epidemiological studies. ‘Observational’ only, as there are still a lot of important research questions in perioperative medicine which can be meaningfully investigated by proper observational studies. Such studies, as opposed to interventional trials, are much less expensive and much simpler from an organisational point of view. Observational studies do

Preoperative anemia and extensive transfusion during stay-in-hospital are critical for patient`s mortality: A retrospective multicenter cohort study of oncological patients undergoing radical cystectomy

BACKGROUND Preoperative anemia and allogeneic blood transfusions (ABTs) may affect outcomes in cancer surgery. The prevalence of anemia, the use of ABTs, the risks of transfusions, lengths of stay and mortality of oncological patients undergoing radical cystectomy were investigated in three University Hospitals in Germany. PATIENTS AND METHODS Hospital records of 220 consecutive patients undergoing radical cystectomy from 2010 to 2012 were retrospectively analyzed for independent risk factors of ABT and unfavorable outcomes (readmission, increased length of stay (LOS) or death) using multivariate regression analysis. RESULTS Preoperative anemia was present in 40%. 70% of patients received blood transfusions. Low preoperative and intraoperative nadir hemoglobin levels were associated with receipt of ABT (OR 1.33, P = 0.04 and OR 2.94, P < 0.001 respectively). Transfusion of ten or more red blood cell units (RBCs) during the entire hospital stay was a predictor of an increased LOS (P < 0.001) and death (OR 52, 95%CI [5.9, 461.3], P < 0.001), compared to non-transfused patients. Preoperative ABT and ASA scores were associated with ≥10RBCs. CONCLUSION Anemic patients undergoing radical cystectomy had a high risk to receive ABTs. Preoperative transfusions and transfusion of ≥10RBCs during the entire hospital stay may increase patient`s mortality. Prospective, randomized controlled studies have to follow this study.

RIPHeart (Remote Ischemic Preconditioning for Heart Surgery) Study: Myocardial Dysfunction, Postoperative Neurocognitive Dysfunction, and 1 Year Follow‐Up

Background Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) has been suggested to protect against certain forms of organ injury after cardiac surgery. Previously, we reported the main results of RIPHeart (Remote Ischemic Preconditioning for Heart Surgery) Study, a multicenter trial randomizing 1403 cardiac surgery patients receiving either RIPC or sham‐RIPC. Methods and Results In this follow‐up paper, we present 1‐year follow‐up of the composite primary end point and its individual components (all‐cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke and acute renal failure), in a sub‐group of patients, intraoperative myocardial dysfunction assessed by transesophageal echocardiography and the incidence of postoperative neurocognitive dysfunction 5 to 7 days and 3 months after surgery. RIPC neither showed any beneficial effect on the 1‐year composite primary end point (RIPC versus sham‐RIPC 16.4% versus 16.9%) and its individual components (all‐cause mortality [3.4% versus 2.5%], myocardial infarction [7.0% versus 9.4%], stroke [2.2% versus 3.1%], acute renal failure [7.0% versus 5.7%]) nor improved intraoperative myocardial dysfunction or incidence of postoperative neurocognitive dysfunction 5 to 7 days (67 [47.5%] versus 71 [53.8%] patients) and 3 months after surgery (17 [27.9%] versus 18 [27.7%] patients), respectively. Conclusions Similar to our main study, RIPC had no effect on intraoperative myocardial dysfunction, neurocognitive function and long‐term outcome in cardiac surgery patients undergoing propofol anesthesia. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01067703.

Improve hip fracture outcome in the elderly patient (iHOPE): a study protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled trial to test the efficacy of spinal versus general anaesthesia

Introduction Hip fracture surgery is associated with high in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates and serious adverse patient outcomes. Evidence from randomised controlled trials regarding effectiveness of spinal versus general anaesthesia on patient-centred outcomes after hip fracture surgery is sparse. Methods and analysis The iHOPE study is a pragmatic national, multicentre, randomised controlled, open-label clinical trial with a two-arm parallel group design. In total, 1032 patients with hip fracture (>65 years) will be randomised in an intended 1:1 allocation ratio to receive spinal anaesthesia (n=516) or general anaesthesia (n=516). Outcome assessment will occur in a blinded manner after hospital discharge and inhospital. The primary endpoint will be assessed by telephone interview and comprises the time to the first occurring event of the binary composite outcome of all-cause mortality or new-onset serious cardiac and pulmonary complications within 30 postoperative days. In-hospital secondary endpoints, assessed via in-person interviews and medical record review, include mortality, perioperative adverse events, delirium, satisfaction, walking independently, length of hospital stay and discharge destination. Telephone interviews will be performed for long-term endpoints (all-cause mortality, independence in walking, chronic pain, ability to return home cognitive function and overall health and disability) at postoperative day 30±3, 180±45 and 365±60. Ethics and dissemination iHOPE has been approved by the leading Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the RWTH Aachen University on 14 March 2018 (EK 022/18). Approval from all other involved local Ethical Committees was subsequently requested and obtained. Study started in April 2018 with a total recruitment period of 24 months. iHOPE will be disseminated via presentations at national and international scientific meetings or conferences and publication in peer-reviewed international scientific journals. Trial registration number DRKS00013644; Pre-results