预防直肠癌切除术后吻合口渗漏的远程缺血预处理与假对照试验(RIPAL 试验):一项试验性随机对照、三重盲法单中心试验。

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Julia Hardt, Steffen Seyfried, Hannah Brodrecht, Leila Khalil, Sylvia Büttner, Florian Herrle, Christoph Reissfelder, Nuh N Rahbari
{"title":"预防直肠癌切除术后吻合口渗漏的远程缺血预处理与假对照试验(RIPAL 试验):一项试验性随机对照、三重盲法单中心试验。","authors":"Julia Hardt, Steffen Seyfried, Hannah Brodrecht, Leila Khalil, Sylvia Büttner, Florian Herrle, Christoph Reissfelder, Nuh N Rahbari","doi":"10.1007/s00384-024-04637-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) reportedly reduces ischemia‒reperfusion injury (IRI) in various organ systems. In addition to tension and technical factors, ischemia is a common cause of anastomotic leakage (AL) after rectal resection. The aim of this pilot study was to investigate the potentially protective effect of RIPC on anastomotic healing and to determine the effect size to facilitate the development of a subsequent confirmatory trial.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Fifty-four patients with rectal cancer (RC) who underwent anterior resection were enrolled in this prospectively registered (DRKS0001894) pilot randomized controlled triple-blinded monocenter trial at the Department of Surgery, University Medicine Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany, between 10/12/2019 and 19/06/2022. The primary endpoint was AL within 30 days after surgery. The secondary endpoints were perioperative morbidity and mortality, reintervention, hospital stay, readmission and biomarkers of ischemia‒reperfusion injury (vascular endothelial growth factor, VEGF) and cell death (high mobility group box 1 protein, HMGB1). RIPC was induced through three 10-min cycles of alternating ischemia and reperfusion to the upper extremity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 207 patients assessed, 153 were excluded, leaving 54 patients to be randomized to the RIPC or the sham-RIPC arm (27 each per arm). The mean age was 61 years, and the majority of patients were male (37:17 (68.5:31.5%)). Most of the patients underwent surgery after neoadjuvant therapy (29/54 (53.7%)) for adenocarcinoma (52/54 (96.3%)). The primary endpoint, AL, occurred almost equally frequently in both arms (RIPC arm: 4/25 (16%), sham arm: 4/26 (15.4%), p = 1.000). The secondary outcomes were comparable except for a greater rate of reintervention in the sham arm (9 (6-12) vs. 3 (1-5), p = 0.034). The median duration of endoscopic vacuum therapy was shorter in the RIPC arm (10.5 (10-11) vs. 38 (24-39) days, p = 0.083), although the difference was not statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A clinically relevant protective effect of RIPC on anastomotic healing after rectal resection cannot be assumed on the basis of these data.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":"39 1","pages":"65"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11068831/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Remote ischemic preconditioning versus sham-control for prevention of anastomotic leakage after resection for rectal cancer (RIPAL trial): a pilot randomized controlled, triple-blinded monocenter trial.\",\"authors\":\"Julia Hardt, Steffen Seyfried, Hannah Brodrecht, Leila Khalil, Sylvia Büttner, Florian Herrle, Christoph Reissfelder, Nuh N Rahbari\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00384-024-04637-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) reportedly reduces ischemia‒reperfusion injury (IRI) in various organ systems. In addition to tension and technical factors, ischemia is a common cause of anastomotic leakage (AL) after rectal resection. The aim of this pilot study was to investigate the potentially protective effect of RIPC on anastomotic healing and to determine the effect size to facilitate the development of a subsequent confirmatory trial.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Fifty-four patients with rectal cancer (RC) who underwent anterior resection were enrolled in this prospectively registered (DRKS0001894) pilot randomized controlled triple-blinded monocenter trial at the Department of Surgery, University Medicine Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany, between 10/12/2019 and 19/06/2022. The primary endpoint was AL within 30 days after surgery. The secondary endpoints were perioperative morbidity and mortality, reintervention, hospital stay, readmission and biomarkers of ischemia‒reperfusion injury (vascular endothelial growth factor, VEGF) and cell death (high mobility group box 1 protein, HMGB1). RIPC was induced through three 10-min cycles of alternating ischemia and reperfusion to the upper extremity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 207 patients assessed, 153 were excluded, leaving 54 patients to be randomized to the RIPC or the sham-RIPC arm (27 each per arm). The mean age was 61 years, and the majority of patients were male (37:17 (68.5:31.5%)). Most of the patients underwent surgery after neoadjuvant therapy (29/54 (53.7%)) for adenocarcinoma (52/54 (96.3%)). The primary endpoint, AL, occurred almost equally frequently in both arms (RIPC arm: 4/25 (16%), sham arm: 4/26 (15.4%), p = 1.000). The secondary outcomes were comparable except for a greater rate of reintervention in the sham arm (9 (6-12) vs. 3 (1-5), p = 0.034). The median duration of endoscopic vacuum therapy was shorter in the RIPC arm (10.5 (10-11) vs. 38 (24-39) days, p = 0.083), although the difference was not statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A clinically relevant protective effect of RIPC on anastomotic healing after rectal resection cannot be assumed on the basis of these data.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"65\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11068831/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-024-04637-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-024-04637-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的据报道,远程缺血预处理(RIPC)可减轻各器官系统的缺血再灌注损伤(IRI)。除张力和技术因素外,缺血也是直肠切除术后吻合口漏(AL)的常见原因。本试验研究的目的是调查 RIPC 对吻合口愈合的潜在保护作用,并确定其效应大小,以促进后续确证试验的开展:这项前瞻性注册(DRKS0001894)的试验性随机对照三重盲法单中心试验于 2019 年 12 月 10 日至 2022 年 6 月 19 日期间在德国曼海姆市曼海姆大学医学部外科学系进行,共招募了 54 名接受前切除术的直肠癌(RC)患者。主要终点是术后 30 天内的 AL。次要终点是围手术期发病率和死亡率、再干预、住院时间、再入院和缺血再灌注损伤生物标志物(血管内皮生长因子,VEGF)和细胞死亡生物标志物(高迁移率组盒1蛋白,HMGB1)。通过对上肢进行三个 10 分钟周期的交替缺血和再灌注诱导 RIPC:在接受评估的 207 名患者中,有 153 人被排除在外,剩下 54 人被随机分配到 RIPC 或假 RIPC 两组(每组 27 人)。平均年龄为 61 岁,大多数患者为男性(37:17(68.5:31.5%))。大多数患者在接受新辅助治疗(29/54 (53.7%))后接受了腺癌手术(52/54 (96.3%))。主要终点 AL 在两组中的发生率几乎相同(RIPC 组:4/25(16%);RIPC 组:4/25(16%);RIPC 组:4/25(16%)):4/25(16%),假手术组:4/26(15.4%):4/26 (15.4%), p = 1.000).除了假手术组的再介入率较高(9 (6-12) vs. 3 (1-5),p = 0.034)外,其他次要结果具有可比性。RIPC治疗组的内镜真空治疗中位持续时间更短(10.5(10-11)天 vs 38(24-39)天,p = 0.083),但差异无统计学意义:结论:根据这些数据,不能假设 RIPC 对直肠切除术后吻合口愈合有临床相关的保护作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Remote ischemic preconditioning versus sham-control for prevention of anastomotic leakage after resection for rectal cancer (RIPAL trial): a pilot randomized controlled, triple-blinded monocenter trial.

Purpose: Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) reportedly reduces ischemia‒reperfusion injury (IRI) in various organ systems. In addition to tension and technical factors, ischemia is a common cause of anastomotic leakage (AL) after rectal resection. The aim of this pilot study was to investigate the potentially protective effect of RIPC on anastomotic healing and to determine the effect size to facilitate the development of a subsequent confirmatory trial.

Materials and methods: Fifty-four patients with rectal cancer (RC) who underwent anterior resection were enrolled in this prospectively registered (DRKS0001894) pilot randomized controlled triple-blinded monocenter trial at the Department of Surgery, University Medicine Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany, between 10/12/2019 and 19/06/2022. The primary endpoint was AL within 30 days after surgery. The secondary endpoints were perioperative morbidity and mortality, reintervention, hospital stay, readmission and biomarkers of ischemia‒reperfusion injury (vascular endothelial growth factor, VEGF) and cell death (high mobility group box 1 protein, HMGB1). RIPC was induced through three 10-min cycles of alternating ischemia and reperfusion to the upper extremity.

Results: Of the 207 patients assessed, 153 were excluded, leaving 54 patients to be randomized to the RIPC or the sham-RIPC arm (27 each per arm). The mean age was 61 years, and the majority of patients were male (37:17 (68.5:31.5%)). Most of the patients underwent surgery after neoadjuvant therapy (29/54 (53.7%)) for adenocarcinoma (52/54 (96.3%)). The primary endpoint, AL, occurred almost equally frequently in both arms (RIPC arm: 4/25 (16%), sham arm: 4/26 (15.4%), p = 1.000). The secondary outcomes were comparable except for a greater rate of reintervention in the sham arm (9 (6-12) vs. 3 (1-5), p = 0.034). The median duration of endoscopic vacuum therapy was shorter in the RIPC arm (10.5 (10-11) vs. 38 (24-39) days, p = 0.083), although the difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusion: A clinically relevant protective effect of RIPC on anastomotic healing after rectal resection cannot be assumed on the basis of these data.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信