TY - JOUR
T1 - A multicenter trial of remote ischemic preconditioning for heart surgery
AU - RIPHeart Study Collaborators
AU - Meybohm, Patrick
AU - Bein, Berthold
AU - Brosteanu, Oana
AU - Cremer, Jochen
AU - Gruenewald, Matthias
AU - Stoppe, Christian
AU - Coburn, Mark
AU - Schaelte, Gereon
AU - Böning, Andreas
AU - Niemann, Bernd
AU - Roesner, Jan
AU - Kletzin, Frank
AU - Strouhal, Ulrich
AU - Reyher, Christian
AU - Laufenberg-Feldmann, Rita
AU - Ferner, Marion
AU - Brandes, Ivo F.
AU - Bauer, Martin
AU - Stehr, Sebastian N.
AU - Kortgen, Andreas
AU - Wittmann, Maria
AU - Baumgarten, Georg
AU - Meyer-Treschan, Tanja
AU - Kienbaum, Peter
AU - Heringlake, Matthias
AU - Schön, Julika
AU - Sander, Michael
AU - Treskatsch, Sascha
AU - Smul, Thorsten
AU - Wolwender, Ewa
AU - Schilling, Thomas
AU - Fuernau, Georg
AU - Hasenclever, Dirk
AU - Zacharowski, Kai
PY - 2015/10/8
Y1 - 2015/10/8
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84943559010&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1056/NEJMoa1413579
DO - 10.1056/NEJMoa1413579
M3 - Journal articles
C2 - 26436208
AN - SCOPUS:84943559010
SN - 0028-4793
VL - 373
SP - 1397
EP - 1407
JO - New England Journal of Medicine
JF - New England Journal of Medicine
IS - 15
ER -