Benjamin Milne, Martin John, Richard Evans, Steven Robertson, Pádraig Ó Scanaill, Gavin J Murphy, Giovanni Landoni, Michael Marber, Tim Clayton, Gudrun Kunst
{"title":"在高风险患者进行泵上心脏手术后,比较异丙酚和全吸入麻醉对心血管效果的影响:随机对照试验和可行性研究。","authors":"Benjamin Milne, Martin John, Richard Evans, Steven Robertson, Pádraig Ó Scanaill, Gavin J Murphy, Giovanni Landoni, Michael Marber, Tim Clayton, Gudrun Kunst","doi":"10.1136/openhrt-2024-002630","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Myocardial revascularisation and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) can cause ischaemia-reperfusion injury, leading to myocardial and other end-organ damage. Volatile anaesthetics protect the myocardium in experimental studies. However, there is uncertainty about whether this translates into clinical benefits because of the coadministration of propofol and its detrimental effects, restricting myocardial protective processes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this single-blinded, parallel-group randomised controlled feasibility trial, higher-risk patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery with an additive European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation ≥5 were randomised to receive either propofol or total inhalational anaesthesia as single agents for maintenance of anaesthesia. The primary outcome was the feasibility of recruiting and randomising 50 patients across two cardiac surgical centres, and secondary outcomes included the feasibility of collecting the planned perioperative data, clinically relevant outcomes and assessments of effective patient identification, screening and recruitment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All 50 patients were recruited within 11 months in two centres, allowing for a 13-month hiatus in recruitment due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, 50/108 (46%) of eligible patients were recruited. One patient withdrew before surgery and one patient did not undergo surgery. All but one completed in-hospital and 30-day follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>It is feasible to recruit and randomise higher-risk patients undergoing CABG surgery to a study comparing total inhalational and propofol anaesthesia in a timely manner and with high acceptance and completion rates.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>NCT04039854.</p>","PeriodicalId":19505,"journal":{"name":"Open Heart","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11086547/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison between propofol and total inhalational anaesthesia on cardiovascular outcomes following on-pump cardiac surgery in higher-risk patients: a randomised controlled pilot and feasibility study.\",\"authors\":\"Benjamin Milne, Martin John, Richard Evans, Steven Robertson, Pádraig Ó Scanaill, Gavin J Murphy, Giovanni Landoni, Michael Marber, Tim Clayton, Gudrun Kunst\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/openhrt-2024-002630\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Myocardial revascularisation and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) can cause ischaemia-reperfusion injury, leading to myocardial and other end-organ damage. Volatile anaesthetics protect the myocardium in experimental studies. However, there is uncertainty about whether this translates into clinical benefits because of the coadministration of propofol and its detrimental effects, restricting myocardial protective processes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this single-blinded, parallel-group randomised controlled feasibility trial, higher-risk patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery with an additive European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation ≥5 were randomised to receive either propofol or total inhalational anaesthesia as single agents for maintenance of anaesthesia. The primary outcome was the feasibility of recruiting and randomising 50 patients across two cardiac surgical centres, and secondary outcomes included the feasibility of collecting the planned perioperative data, clinically relevant outcomes and assessments of effective patient identification, screening and recruitment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All 50 patients were recruited within 11 months in two centres, allowing for a 13-month hiatus in recruitment due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, 50/108 (46%) of eligible patients were recruited. One patient withdrew before surgery and one patient did not undergo surgery. All but one completed in-hospital and 30-day follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>It is feasible to recruit and randomise higher-risk patients undergoing CABG surgery to a study comparing total inhalational and propofol anaesthesia in a timely manner and with high acceptance and completion rates.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>NCT04039854.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19505,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Heart\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11086547/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Heart\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2024-002630\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Heart","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2024-002630","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison between propofol and total inhalational anaesthesia on cardiovascular outcomes following on-pump cardiac surgery in higher-risk patients: a randomised controlled pilot and feasibility study.
Objectives: Myocardial revascularisation and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) can cause ischaemia-reperfusion injury, leading to myocardial and other end-organ damage. Volatile anaesthetics protect the myocardium in experimental studies. However, there is uncertainty about whether this translates into clinical benefits because of the coadministration of propofol and its detrimental effects, restricting myocardial protective processes.
Methods: In this single-blinded, parallel-group randomised controlled feasibility trial, higher-risk patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery with an additive European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation ≥5 were randomised to receive either propofol or total inhalational anaesthesia as single agents for maintenance of anaesthesia. The primary outcome was the feasibility of recruiting and randomising 50 patients across two cardiac surgical centres, and secondary outcomes included the feasibility of collecting the planned perioperative data, clinically relevant outcomes and assessments of effective patient identification, screening and recruitment.
Results: All 50 patients were recruited within 11 months in two centres, allowing for a 13-month hiatus in recruitment due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, 50/108 (46%) of eligible patients were recruited. One patient withdrew before surgery and one patient did not undergo surgery. All but one completed in-hospital and 30-day follow-up.
Conclusions: It is feasible to recruit and randomise higher-risk patients undergoing CABG surgery to a study comparing total inhalational and propofol anaesthesia in a timely manner and with high acceptance and completion rates.
期刊介绍:
Open Heart is an online-only, open access cardiology journal that aims to be “open” in many ways: open access (free access for all readers), open peer review (unblinded peer review) and open data (data sharing is encouraged). The goal is to ensure maximum transparency and maximum impact on research progress and patient care. The journal is dedicated to publishing high quality, peer reviewed medical research in all disciplines and therapeutic areas of cardiovascular medicine. Research is published across all study phases and designs, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialist studies. Opinionated discussions on controversial topics are welcomed. Open Heart aims to operate a fast submission and review process with continuous publication online, to ensure timely, up-to-date research is available worldwide. The journal adheres to a rigorous and transparent peer review process, and all articles go through a statistical assessment to ensure robustness of the analyses. Open Heart is an official journal of the British Cardiovascular Society.