A Multicenter Trial of Remote Ischemic Preconditioning for Heart Surgery

Patrick Meybohm(University of Lübeck), Berthold Bein, Oana Brosteanu(University of Lübeck), Jochen Cremer, Matthias Gruenewald, Christian Stoppe(Universitätsklinikum Aachen), Mark Coburn(University Hospital Leipzig), G. Schaelte(University Hospital Leipzig), Andreas Böning(University of Giessen), Bernd Niemann(University of Giessen), Jan P. Roesner(University of Rostock), Frank Kletzin(University of Rostock), Ulrich Strouhal(Goethe University Frankfurt), Christian Reyher(Goethe University Frankfurt), Rita Laufenberg–Feldmann(University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz), Marion Ferner(University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz), Ivo F. Brandes(Universitätsmedizin Göttingen), Martin Bauer(Universitätsmedizin Göttingen), Sebastian N. Stehr(Jena University Hospital), Andreas Kortgen(Jena University Hospital), Mária Wittmann(University Hospital Bonn), Georg Baumgarten(University Hospital Bonn), Tanja Meyer‐Treschan(Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf), Peter Kienbaum(Düsseldorf University Hospital), Matthias Heringlake(University of Lübeck), Julika Schön(University of Lübeck), Michael Sander(Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin), Sascha Treskatsch(Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin), Thorsten M. Smul(Universitätsklinikum Würzburg), Ewa Wolwender(Universitätsklinikum Würzburg), Thomas Schilling(University Hospital Magdeburg), Georg Fuernau(Leipzig Heart Institute), Dirk Hasenclever(Institute for Medical Informatics and Biostatistics), Kai Zacharowski(University Hospital Frankfurt)
New England Journal of Medicine
October 5, 2015
Cited by 631Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

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.).


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis