Search

Objective: To assess the clinical efficacy of a neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) device to improve the absolute walking distance in patients with intermittent claudication as an adjunct to the local standard care available at the study sites compared with local standard care alone., Methods: This open, multicenter, randomized controlled trial included eight participating centers in England. Sites are equally distributed between those that provide supervised exercise therapy programs and those that do not. Patients with intermittent claudication meeting the eligibility criteria and providing consent will be randomized, depending on the center type, to either NMES and locally available standard care or standard care alone. The primary end point is change in absolute walking distance at 3 months (the end of the intervention period) by treadmill testing. Secondary outcomes include quality of life, compliance with the interventions, economic evaluation of the NMES device, and lower limb hemodynamic measures to further the understanding of underlying mechanisms. Recruitment commenced in March 2018 and will continue for a total of 15 months. The Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation Improves the Absolute Walking Distance in Patients with Intermittent Claudication trial is funded by the UK Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme, Medical Research Council, and National Institute for Health Research partnership., (Copyright © 2018 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Ischaemia-reperfusion injury occurs during heart surgery that uses cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cardioplegic arrest. It is hypothesised that remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) protects the heart against such injury. Despite the numerous studies investigating the protective effects of RIPC, there is still uncertainty about the interpretation of the findings as well as conflicting results between studies. The objective of this trial is to investigate the cardioprotective effect of RIPC in patients having coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or aortic valve replacement surgery. This will be achieved by estimating the effect of the intervention in the two groups of pathologies and by investigating the signalling mechanisms that may underpin the cardioprotective effect., Methods/design: A two-centre randomised controlled trial will be used to investigate the effects of RIPC in two pathologies: patients having isolated CABG and those having aortic valve replacement surgery (AVR) with CPB. Participants will be randomised to RIPC or control (sham RIPC), stratified by surgical stratum. The intervention will be delivered by a research nurse. Data will be collected by a research nurse blinded to the intervention. The patient and the theatre staff are also blinded to the allocation. Markers of myocardial injury and inflammation will be measured in myocardial biopsies and in blood samples at different times., Discussion: This trial is designed to investigate whether RIPC will reduce myocardial injury and inflammation following heart surgery and whether there is a difference in effect between participants having CABG or AVR. This trial is a unique opportunity to study the mechanisms associated with RIPC using human myocardial tissue and blood, and to relate these to the extent of myocardial injury/protection., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33084113 (25 March 2013).

Background: Europe is at the peak of an epidemic of malignant pleural mesothelioma and the burden of disease is likely to continue rising in the large areas of the world where asbestos remains unregulated. Patients with mesothelioma present with thoracic symptoms and radiological changes so respiratory physicians take a leading role in diagnosis and management. Belief that the modest survival times reported after radical surgery, whether alone or as part of multimodal therapy, are longer than they it would have been without surgery relies on data from highly selected, uncontrolled, retrospectively analysed case series. The only randomised study, the Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery (MARS) trial showed no benefit. A simple modelling study of registry patients, described here, shows that an impression of longer survival is eroded when patients who were never candidates for operation on grounds of histology, performance status and age are sequentially excluded from the model., Conclusion: Whenever the question arises `Might an operation help me?' there are two responses that can and should be given. The first is that there is doubt about whether there is any survival or symptomatic benefit from surgery but we know that there is harm. The second is that there are on-going studies, including two randomised trials, which patients should be informed about. The authors suggest that the default position for clinicians should be to encourage recruitment into these trials.