Conventional versus minimally invasive extra-corporeal circulation in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: A randomized controlled trial (COMICS).

INTRODUCTION: The trial hypothesized that minimally invasive extra-corporeal circulation (MiECC) reduces the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) after cardiac surgery operations requiring extra-corporeal circulation without circulatory arrest. METHODS: This is a multicentre, international randomized controlled trial across fourteen cardiac surgery centres including patients aged ≥18 and <85 years undergoing elective or urgent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgery, or CABG + AVR surgery. Participants were randomized to MiECC or conventional extra-corporeal circulation (CECC), stratified by centre and operation. The primary outcome was a composite of 12 post-operative SAEs up to 30 days after surgery, the risk of which MiECC was hypothesized to reduce. Secondary outcomes comprised: other SAEs; all-cause mortality; transfusion of blood products; time to discharge from intensive care and hospital; health-related quality-of-life. Analyses were performed on a modified intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: The trial terminated early due to the COVID-19 pandemic; 1071 participants (896 isolated CABG, 97 isolated AVR, 69 CABG + AVR) with median age 66 years and median EuroSCORE II 1.24 were randomized (535 to MiECC, 536 to CECC). Twenty-six participants withdrew after randomization, 22 before and four after intervention. Fifty of 517 (9.7%) randomized to MiECC and 69/522 (13.2%) randomized to CECC group experienced the primary outcome (risk ratio = 0.732, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 0.556 to 0.962, p = 0.025). The risk of any SAE not contributing to the primary outcome was similarly reduced (risk ratio = 0.791, 95% CI 0.530 to 1.179, p = 0.250). CONCLUSIONS: MiECC reduces the relative risk of primary outcome events by about 25%. The risk of other SAEs was similarly reduced. Because the trial terminated early without achieving the target sample size, these potential benefits of MiECC are uncertain.

Efficacy of propofol-supplemented cardioplegia on biomarkers of organ injury in patients having cardiac surgery using cardiopulmonary bypass: A protocol for a randomised controlled study (ProMPT2).

INTRODUCTION: Cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass and cardioplegic arrest is known to be responsible for ischaemia and reperfusion organ injury. In a previous study, ProMPT, in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass or aortic valve surgery we demonstrated improved cardiac protection when supplementing the cardioplegia solution with propofol (6 mcg/ml). The aim of the ProMPT2 study is to determine whether higher levels of propofol added to the cardioplegia could result in increased cardiac protection. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The ProMPT2 study is a multi-centre, parallel, three-group, randomised controlled trial in adults undergoing non-emergency isolated coronary artery bypass graft surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. A total of 240 patients will be randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive either cardioplegia supplementation with high dose of propofol (12 mcg/ml), low dose of propofol (6 mcg/ml) or placebo (saline). The primary outcome is myocardial injury, assessed by serial measurements of myocardial troponin T up to 48 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes include biomarkers of renal function (creatinine) and metabolism (lactate). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial received research ethics approval from South Central - Berkshire B Research Ethics Committee and Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in September 2018. Any findings will be shared though peer-reviewed publications and presented at international and national meetings. Participants will be informed of results through patient organisations and newsletters. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN15255199. Registered in March 2019.

Outcome Monitoring After Cardiac Surgery (OMACS): a single-centre prospective cohort study of cardiac surgery patients.

INTRODUCTION: More than 30 000 cardiac surgery procedures are performed in the UK each year, however, postoperative complications and long-term failure of interventions are common, leading to repeated surgeries. This represents a significant burden on the patient and health service.Routinely, patients are discharged to their general practitioner 6 weeks postoperatively and research studies typically only report short-term outcomes up to 1 year after surgery, together this makes long-term outcomes of cardiac surgery difficult to monitor. Further, traditional research methods have yet to advance understanding of what causes early complications and why surgical interventions fail. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This prospective cohort study will characterise participants undergoing cardiac surgery at baseline, describe short-term, medium-term and long-term health outcomes postoperatively and collect tissue samples.All eligible adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery at the Bristol Heart Institute, UK will be approached for consent. Recruitment is expected to continue for up to 10 years resulting in the largest cohort of cardiac patients reported to date. Blood, urine and waste tissue samples will be collected during admission. Samples, along with anonymised data, will be used to investigate outcomes and inform predictive models of complications associated with cardiac surgery.Data about the surgical admission will be obtained from hospital databases and medical notes. Participants may be monitored up to 5 years postoperatively using data obtained from NHS digital. Participants will complete health questionnaires 3 months and 12 months postoperatively.The analysis of data and tissue samples to address specific research questions will require separate research protocols and ethical approval. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the East Midlands Nottingham 2 Research Ethics Committee.Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentation at national and international meetings. Participants will be informed of results in annual newsletters. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN90204321.

The OMACS-PIL study: a randomised controlled trial within the OMACS observational study.

BACKGROUND: There has been little research to investigate whether the appearance of paper patient information leaflets (PILs) used to describe research studies to potential participants influences their decision to take part. Embedding a study within a trial (SWAT) is an efficient way of answering this type of methodological question. We included a randomised SWAT within a large cohort study, Outcome Monitoring after Cardiac Surgery (OMACS), to address this question. METHODS: Potential participants for the OMACS study were randomised to receive one of three PILs, which were identical in content but with varying formatting and use of colour: PIL A (enhanced format), PIL B (hybrid format) and PIL C (standard format). Consent to OMACS was the primary outcome. Consent rates using the three different PIL formats were collected and compared. Qualitative feedback on the different formats was obtained from a public and patient involvement (PPI) group. RESULTS: For the SWAT, 1517 PILs were sent to potential participants, of whom 640 (42%) consented to take part in OMACS. PIL B had the highest recruitment rate, with 45% of patients consenting to participation; 40% and 41% of patients consented to participation after receiving PILs A and C, respectively. Compared to PIL C, the consent rate was 4% higher with PIL B (45% versus 41%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2% to + 10%, p = 0.16) and 1% lower with PIL A (40% versus 41%, 95% CI - 7% to + 5%, p = 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: Consent rates were similar for all three PIL formats. PIL B is being used for the remainder of the host study and will be used to inform the design of PILs for other research studies, as it was the preferred format of the PPI group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Clinical Trials Registry, ISRCTN90204321. Registered on 21 January 2015.

B-type natriuretic peptide-guided therapy for heart failure (HF): a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data (IPD) and aggregate data.

BACKGROUND: We estimated the effectiveness of serial B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) blood testing to guide up-titration of medication compared with symptom-guided up-titration of medication in patients with heart failure (HF). METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We searched: MEDLINE (Ovid) 1950 to 9/06/2016; Embase (Ovid), 1980 to 2016 week 23; the Cochrane Library; ISI Web of Science (Citations Index and Conference Proceedings). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were death related to HF, cardiovascular death, all-cause hospital admission, hospital admission for HF, adverse events, and quality of life. IPD were sought from all RCTs identified. Random-effects meta-analyses (two-stage) were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and confidence intervals (CIs) across RCTs, including HR estimates from published reports of studies that did not provide IPD. We estimated treatment-by-covariate interactions for age, gender, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, HF type; diabetes status and baseline BNP subgroups. Dichotomous outcomes were analysed using random-effects odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI. RESULTS: We identified 14 eligible RCTs, five providing IPD. BNP-guided therapy reduced the hazard of hospital admission for HF by 19% (13 RCTs, HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.98) but not all-cause mortality (13 RCTs; HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.01) or cardiovascular mortality (5 RCTs; OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.16). For all-cause mortality, there was a significant interaction between treatment strategy and age (p = 0.034, 11 RCTs; HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53-0.92, patients < 75 years old and HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.84-1.37, patients ≥ 75 years old); ejection fraction (p = 0.026, 11 RCTs; HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71-0.99, patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); and HR 1.33, 95% CI 0.83-2.11, patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)). Adverse events were significantly more frequent with BNP-guided therapy vs. symptom-guided therapy (5 RCTs; OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.60). CONCLUSION: BNP-guided therapy did not reduce mortality but reduced HF hospitalisation. The overall quality of the evidence varied from low to very low. The relevance of these findings to unselected patients, particularly those managed by community generalists, are unclear. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42013005335.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of serum B-type natriuretic peptide testing and monitoring in patients with heart failure in primary and secondary care: an evidence synthesis, cohort study and cost-effectiveness model.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) affects around 500,000 people in the UK. HF medications are frequently underprescribed and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP)-guided therapy may help to optimise treatment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BNP-guided therapy compared with symptom-guided therapy in HF patients. DESIGN: Systematic review, cohort study and cost-effectiveness model. SETTING: A literature review and usual care in the NHS. PARTICIPANTS: (a) HF patients in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of BNP-guided therapy; and (b) patients having usual care for HF in the NHS. INTERVENTIONS: Systematic review: BNP-guided therapy or symptom-guided therapy in primary or secondary care. Cohort study: BNP monitored (≥ 6 months' follow-up and three or more BNP tests and two or more tests per year), BNP tested (≥ 1 tests but not BNP monitored) or never tested. Cost-effectiveness model: BNP-guided therapy in specialist clinics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality, hospital admission (all cause and HF related) and adverse events; and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for the cost-effectiveness model. DATA SOURCES: Systematic review: Individual participant or aggregate data from eligible RCTs. Cohort study: The Clinical Practice Research Datalink, Hospital Episode Statistics and National Heart Failure Audit (NHFA). REVIEW METHODS: A systematic literature search (five databases, trial registries, grey literature and reference lists of publications) for published and unpublished RCTs. RESULTS: Five RCTs contributed individual participant data (IPD) and eight RCTs contributed aggregate data (1536 participants were randomised to BNP-guided therapy and 1538 participants were randomised to symptom-guided therapy). For all-cause mortality, the hazard ratio (HR) for BNP-guided therapy was 0.87 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.04]. Patients who were aged < 75 years or who had heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) received the most benefit [interactions (p = 0.03): < 75 years vs. ≥ 75 years: HR 0.70 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.92) vs. 1.07 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.37); HFrEF vs. heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF): HR 0.83 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.01) vs. 1.33 (95% CI 0.83 to 2.11)]. In the cohort study, incident HF patients (1 April 2005-31 March 2013) were never tested (n = 13,632), BNP tested (n = 3392) or BNP monitored (n = 71). Median survival was 5 years; all-cause mortality was 141.5 out of 1000 person-years (95% CI 138.5 to 144.6 person-years). All-cause mortality and hospital admission rate were highest in the BNP-monitored group, and median survival among 130,433 NHFA patients (1 January 2007-1 March 2013) was 2.2 years. The admission rate was 1.1 patients per year (interquartile range 0.5-3.5 patients). In the cost-effectiveness model, in patients aged < 75 years with HFrEF or HFpEF, BNP-guided therapy improves median survival (7.98 vs. 6.46 years) with a small QALY gain (5.68 vs. 5.02) but higher lifetime costs (£64,777 vs. £58,139). BNP-guided therapy is cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of the trial were a lack of IPD for most RCTs and heterogeneous interventions; the inability to identify BNP monitoring confidently, to determine medication doses or to distinguish between HFrEF and HFpEF; the use of a simplified two-state Markov model; a focus on health service costs and a paucity of data on HFpEF patients aged < 75 years and HFrEF patients aged ≥ 75 years. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of BNP-guided therapy in specialist HF clinics is uncertain. If efficacious, it would be cost-effective for patients aged < 75 years with HFrEF. The evidence reviewed may not apply in the UK because care is delivered differently. FUTURE WORK: Identify an optimal BNP-monitoring strategy and how to optimise HF management in accordance with guidelines; update the IPD meta-analysis to include the Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment (GUIDE-IT) RCT; collect routine long-term outcome data for completed and ongoing RCTs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN37248047 and PROSPERO CRD42013005335. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The British Heart Foundation paid for Chris A Rogers' and Maria Pufulete's time contributing to the study. Syed Mohiuddin's time is supported by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust. Rachel Maishman contributed to the study when she was in receipt of a NIHR Methodology Research Fellowship.

Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of B-type natriuretic peptide-guided care in patients with heart failure.

OBJECTIVE: Monitoring B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) to guide pharmacotherapy might improve survival in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, the cost-effectiveness of BNP-guided care is uncertain and guidelines do not uniformly recommend it. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of BNP-guided care in patient subgroups defined by age and ejection fraction. METHODS: We used a Markov model with a 3-month cycle length to estimate the lifetime health service costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental net monetary benefits (iNMBs) of BNP-guided versus clinically guided care in 3 patient subgroups: (1) HFrEF patients <75 years; (2) HFpEF patients <75 years; and (3) HFrEF patients ≥75 years. There is no evidence of benefit in patients with HFpEF aged ≥75 years. We used individual patient data meta-analyses and linked primary care, hospital and mortality data to inform the key model parameters. We performed probabilistic analysis to assess the uncertainty in model results. RESULTS: In younger patients (<75 years) with HFrEF, the mean QALYs (5.57 vs 5.02) and costs (£63 527 vs £58 139) were higher with BNP-guided care. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY, the positive iNMB (£5424 (95% CI £987 to £9469)) indicates that BNP-guided care is cost-effective in this subgroup. The evidence of cost-effectiveness of BNP-guided care is less strong for younger patients with HFpEF (£3155 (-£10 307 to £11 613)) and older patients (≥75 years) with HFrEF (£2267 (-£1524 to £6074)). BNP-guided care remained cost-effective in the sensitivity analyses, albeit the results were sensitive to assumptions on its sustained effect. CONCLUSIONS: We found strong evidence that BNP-guided care is a cost-effective alternative to clinically guided care in younger patients with HFrEF. It is potentially cost-effective in younger patients with HFpEF and older patients with HFrEF, but more evidence is required, particularly with respect to the frequency, duration and BNP target for monitoring. Cost-effectiveness results from trials in specialist settings cannot be generalised to primary care.

The healthcare costs of heart failure during the last five years of life: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the economic impact of heart failure (HF) is vital in order to predict the cost-effectiveness of novel interventions. We estimate the health system costs of HF during the last five years of life. METHODS: We used linked primary care and mortality data accessed through the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) to identify 1555 adults in England who died with HF in 2012/13. We used CPRD and linked Hospital Episode Statistics to estimate the cost of medications, primary and hospital healthcare. Using GLS regression we estimated the relationship between costs, HF diagnosis, proximity to death and patient characteristics. RESULTS: In the last 3months of life, healthcare costs were £8827 (95% CI £8357 to £9296) per patient, more than 90% of which were for inpatient or critical care. In the last 3months, patients spent on average 17.8 (95% CI 16.8 to 18.8) days in hospital and had 8.8 (95% CI 8.4 to 9.1) primary care consultations. Most (931/1555; 59.9%) patients were in hospital on the day of death. Mean quarterly healthcare costs in quarters after HF diagnosis were higher (£1439; [95% CI £1260 to £1619]) than in quarters preceding diagnosis. Older patients and patients with lower comorbidity scores had lower costs. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare costs increase sharply at the end of life and are dominated by hospital care. There is potential to save money by implementation and evaluation of interventions that are known to reduce hospitalisations for HF, particularly at the end of life.