SUNDAY trial insights: questionnaire of clinical perspectives on medical therapy in uncomplicated type B aortic dissections.

Erin C Saricilar, Jacob Budtz-Lilly, Bianca Biersteker, Joost VAN DER Vorst, Kevin Mani
{"title":"SUNDAY trial insights: questionnaire of clinical perspectives on medical therapy in uncomplicated type B aortic dissections.","authors":"Erin C Saricilar, Jacob Budtz-Lilly, Bianca Biersteker, Joost VAN DER Vorst, Kevin Mani","doi":"10.23736/S0021-9509.25.13363-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Medical therapy is the cornerstone of managing uncomplicated type B aortic dissections (uTBAD), however there are limited guidelines on its implementation. This study aimed to investigate variations in the interpretation and implementation of medical therapy among principal investigators of an ongoing international randomized clinical trial on uTBAD management.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study was conducted among all principal investigators participating in the Scandinavian trial of Uncomplicated Aortic Dissection Therapy (SUNDAY) trial across seven countries. A secure online survey was distributed and entered into Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap), collecting categorical data on different aspects of medical therapy, including therapy targets, reporting standards, medical management and investigations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 34 of 46 investigators responded (74%). While 31 (91%) agreed upon blood pressure targets of less than 120 mmHg, refractory hypertension was defined as blood pressure exceeding 140 mmHg by 12 (35%), with 17 (50%) considering the number of antihypertensives used to determine refractory hypertension of which eight (24%) set this at >3, and nine (27%) at >5. The upper limit for heart rate was agreed as 60 bpm by 20 (59%). There was no agreement on the definition of refractory pain, with seven (21%) not even considering it in decision-making. There was notable variation in reporting standards regarding chronicity, with 11 (32%) deeming hyperacute to be <24 hours, 13 (38%) deeming it <48 hours and five (15%) not considering it at all. 29 (85%) stated that they have a standardized hospital protocol for medical therapy for acute uTBAD. There was general agreement on escalation of anti-hypertensives in acute uTBAD with 30 (88%) starting with IV labetalol as first line, followed by calcium channel antagonists by 13 (38%) as second- and third-line treatments. Adjunctive medications were used consistently with 20 (59%) commenced statins as part of medical therapy and 22 (65%) commenced life-long single antiplatelets.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings highlight variation and possibly reflect a lack of high-level evidence for medical therapy for uTBAD. Variations in therapeutic targets, reporting standards, medical management and adjunctive therapies between clinicians are evident.</p>","PeriodicalId":101333,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of cardiovascular surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of cardiovascular surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0021-9509.25.13363-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Medical therapy is the cornerstone of managing uncomplicated type B aortic dissections (uTBAD), however there are limited guidelines on its implementation. This study aimed to investigate variations in the interpretation and implementation of medical therapy among principal investigators of an ongoing international randomized clinical trial on uTBAD management.

Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study was conducted among all principal investigators participating in the Scandinavian trial of Uncomplicated Aortic Dissection Therapy (SUNDAY) trial across seven countries. A secure online survey was distributed and entered into Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap), collecting categorical data on different aspects of medical therapy, including therapy targets, reporting standards, medical management and investigations.

Results: A total of 34 of 46 investigators responded (74%). While 31 (91%) agreed upon blood pressure targets of less than 120 mmHg, refractory hypertension was defined as blood pressure exceeding 140 mmHg by 12 (35%), with 17 (50%) considering the number of antihypertensives used to determine refractory hypertension of which eight (24%) set this at >3, and nine (27%) at >5. The upper limit for heart rate was agreed as 60 bpm by 20 (59%). There was no agreement on the definition of refractory pain, with seven (21%) not even considering it in decision-making. There was notable variation in reporting standards regarding chronicity, with 11 (32%) deeming hyperacute to be <24 hours, 13 (38%) deeming it <48 hours and five (15%) not considering it at all. 29 (85%) stated that they have a standardized hospital protocol for medical therapy for acute uTBAD. There was general agreement on escalation of anti-hypertensives in acute uTBAD with 30 (88%) starting with IV labetalol as first line, followed by calcium channel antagonists by 13 (38%) as second- and third-line treatments. Adjunctive medications were used consistently with 20 (59%) commenced statins as part of medical therapy and 22 (65%) commenced life-long single antiplatelets.

Conclusions: These findings highlight variation and possibly reflect a lack of high-level evidence for medical therapy for uTBAD. Variations in therapeutic targets, reporting standards, medical management and adjunctive therapies between clinicians are evident.

SUNDAY试验见解:对无并发症的B型主动脉夹层药物治疗的临床观点的问卷调查。
背景:药物治疗是治疗无并发症的B型主动脉夹层(uTBAD)的基石,然而关于其实施的指南有限。本研究旨在调查一项正在进行的关于uTBAD管理的国际随机临床试验的主要研究人员在医学治疗的解释和实施方面的差异。方法:在7个国家参加斯堪的纳维亚无并发症主动脉夹层治疗试验(SUNDAY)的所有主要研究人员中进行了一项基于横断面问卷的研究。分发了一份安全的在线调查,并将其输入研究电子数据采集(REDCap),收集关于医疗不同方面的分类数据,包括治疗目标、报告标准、医疗管理和调查。结果:46名调查人员中,有34人回复(74%)。31人(91%)同意血压目标低于120 mmHg,难治性高血压被定义为12人(35%)血压超过140 mmHg, 17人(50%)考虑了用于确定难治性高血压的抗高血压药物的数量,其中8人(24%)将其设定为bbb3, 9人(27%)将其设定为>5。20%(59%)的人同意心率上限为每分钟60次。对难治性疼痛的定义没有达成一致,7人(21%)甚至在决策时没有考虑到这一点。报告标准在慢性方面存在显著差异,其中11例(32%)被认为是超急性。结论:这些发现突出了差异,可能反映了uTBAD药物治疗缺乏高水平证据。临床医生之间在治疗目标、报告标准、医疗管理和辅助治疗方面的差异是显而易见的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信