Category Archives: On Trial

The STITCH trial: a summary

Posted on by
Reply

One discussion this week mentioned the STITCH trial.

Reference: Deerenberg EB, et al. Small bites versus large bites for closure of abdominal midline incisions (STITCH): a double-blind, multicentre, randomised control trial. Lancet. 2015 Sep 26;386(10000):1254-1260. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60459-7.

Summary: Incisional hernia is a frequent complication of abdominal operations with an incidence of 10–23%, which can increase to 38% in specific risk groups. It is associated with pain and discomfort, resulting in a decreased quality of life. Incarceration and strangulation of abdominal contents can take place, for which emergency surgery is indicated, with associated morbidity and mortality. The authors (2015) estimate about 348,000 operations for incisional hernia are done every year in the US with $3.2 billion in annual associated costs.

Continue reading →

Balanced crystalloids vs saline in adult non-ICU patients

Posted on by
Reply

One discussion this week included the question of balanced crystalloids vs saline in ICU and non-ICU patients.

Reference: Self WH, et al. Balanced crystalloids versus saline in noncritically ill adults. NEJM. 2018 Mar 1; 378:819-828. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1711586

(Funded by the Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research and others; SALT-ED ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02614040.)

Summary: METHODS: This was a single-center, pragmatic, multiple-crossover trial comparing balanced crystalloids (lactated Ringer’s solution or Plasma-Lyte A) with saline among adults who were treated with intravenous crystalloids in the emergency department and were subsequently hospitalized outside an ICU. The type of crystalloid that was administered in the emergency department was assigned to each patient on the basis of calendar month, with the entire emergency department crossing over between balanced crystalloids and salinemonthly during the 16-month trial. The primary outcome was hospital-free days (days alive after discharge before day 28). Secondary outcomes included major adverse kidney events within 30 days – a composite of death from any cause, new renal-replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction (defined as an elevation of the creatinine level to ≥200% of baseline) – all censored at hospital discharge or 30 days, whichever occurred first.

RESULTS: A total of 13,347 patients were enrolled, with a median crystalloid volume administered in the emergency department of 1079 ml and 88.3% of the patients exclusively receiving the assigned crystalloid. The number of hospital-free days did not differ between the balanced-crystalloids and saline groups (median, 25 days in each group; adjusted odds ratio with balanced crystalloids, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.04; P=0.41). Balanced crystalloids resulted in a lower incidence of major adverse kidney events within 30 days than saline (4.7% vs. 5.6%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.95; P=0.01).

The authors note that a strength of this trial was high adherence to the assigned crystalloid group. Use of an unblinded, pragmatic design in a learning health care system facilitated incorporation of the trial into routine practice, allowing the assigned crystalloid to be systematically used for early fluid resuscitation immediately after arrival in the emergency department.

CONCLUSION: Among noncritically ill adults treated with intravenous fluids in the emergency department, there was no difference in hospital-free days between treatment with balanced crystalloids and treatment with saline.

Balanced crystalloids vs saline in adult ICU patients

Posted on by
Reply

One discussion this week included the question of balanced crystalloids vs saline in ICU and non-ICU patients.

Reference: Semler MW, et al. Balanced crystalloids versus saline in critically ill adults. NEJM. 2018 Mar 1;378:829-839. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1711584

Summary: Although both saline and balanced crystalloids have been administered to patients in clinical practice for decades, few trials have addressed the effects of crystalloid composition on clinical outcomes.

The authors conducted an unblinded, cluster-randomized, multiple-crossover trial in which the use of balanced crystalloids was compared with saline for intravenous fluid administration among critically ill adults admitted to five ICUs at Vanderbilt University Medical Center between June 1, 2015, and April 30, 2017. A total of 15,802 patients were enrolled. The median age was 58, and 57.6% of patients were men.

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who met one or more criteria for a major adverse kidney event within 30 days — the composite of death, new receipt of renal-replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction (defined as a final inpatient creatinine value ≥200% of the baseline value) — all censored at hospital discharge or 30 days after enrollment, whichever came first.

Among the 7942 patients in the balanced-crystalloids group, 1139 (14.3%) had a major adverse kidney event, as compared with 1211 of 7860 patients (15.4%) in the saline group (marginal odds ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 0.99; conditional odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.99; P=0.04). In-hospital mortality at 30 days was 10.3% in the balanced-crystalloids group and 11.1% in the saline group (P=0.06). The incidence of new renal-replacement therapy was 2.5% and 2.9%, respectively (P=0.08), and the incidence of persistent renal dysfunction was 6.4% and 6.6%, respectively (P=0.60).

In this trial of critically ill adults, the intravenous administration of balanced crystalloids rather than saline had a favorable effect on the composite outcome of death, new renal-replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction.

Additional Reading: Hammond DA, et al. Balanced crystalloids versus saline in critically ill adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Pharmacotherapy. 2019 Jul 31:1060028019866420. doi: 10.1177/1060028019866420.

D1 vs D2 resection for gastric cancer

Posted on by
Reply

One discussion this week included a trial out of Denmark comparing D1 and D2 lymph-node dissection for gastric cancer.

Reference: Bonenkamp JJ, et al. Extended lymph-node dissection for gastric cancer. NEJM. 1999 Mar 25;340(12):908-914.

Summary: Curative resection is the treatment of choice for gastric cancer, but it is unclear whether this operation should include an extended (D2) lymph-node dissection or a limited (D1) dissection. The authors conducted a randomized trial in 80 Dutch hospitals in which they compared D1 with D2 lymph-node dissection for gastric cancer in terms of morbidity, postoperative mortality, long-term survival, and cumulative risk of relapse after surgery.

Between August 1989 and July 1993, 996 patients were enrolled. Of these, 711 underwent randomly assigned treatment (D1 = 380, D2 = 331) and 285 received palliative treatment.

General findings:

  • Complications: 43% in D2, 25% in D1
  • Postoperative deaths: 10% in D2, 4% in D1
  • Length of stay: 16 median days in D2, 14 days in D1
  • 5-year survival rates: 47% in D2, 45% in D1

 

d1 v d2

One of the arguments for D2 dissection is its ability to reduce rates of local recurrence, thereby increasing the quality of life. The distressing finding of local recurrence, usually in a terminal phase of the disease, often leads to second operations to restore gastrointestinal continuity. In this trial, there was a tendency toward a reduced cumulative risk of relapse after D2 dissection, but the rate of relapse remained high and the difference from D1 dissection was not significant. A subgroup analysis indicated a significant or marginally significant difference for patients with disease in UICC stages II and IIIA, but this difference was attributable largely to stage migration.

The MAGIC Trial: Does perioperative ECF improve outcomes for gastric cancer patients?

Posted on by
Reply

One discussion this week included the Medical Research Council Adjuvant Gastric Infusional Chemotherapy (MAGIC) Trial. [Current Controlled Trials number: ISRCTN93793971.]

Reference: Cunningham D, et al. Perioperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal cancer. NEJM. 2006 Jul 6;355(1):11-20.

Summary: A regimen of epirubicin, cisplatin, and infused fluorouracil (ECF) improves survival among patients with incurable locally advanced or metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma. The MAGIC Trial assessed whether the addition of a perioperative regimen of ECF to surgery improves outcomes among patients with potentially curable gastric cancer.

METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with resectable adenocarcinoma of the stomach, esophagogastric junction, or lower esophagus to either perioperative  chemotherapy and surgery (250 patients) or surgery alone (253 patients). Chemotherapy consisted of three preoperative and three postoperative cycles of intravenous epirubicin (50 mg per square meter of body-surface area) and cisplatin (60 mg per square meter) on day 1, and a continuous intravenous infusion of fluorouracil (200 mg per square meter per day) for 21 days. The primary end point was overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS: In patients with operable gastric or lower esophageal adenocarcinomas, a perioperative regimen of ECF decreased tumor size and stage and significantly improved progression-free and overall survival.

MAGIC

(p.16)

Additional Reading: Cunningham D, et al. Perio-operative chemoterhapy with or without bevacizumab in operable oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma (UK Medical Research Council ST03): primary analysis results of a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2-3 trial. Lancet Oncology. 2017 Mar;18(3):357-370.  doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30043-8.

[ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00450203.]

The timing and accuracy of SLNB for nodal management after NAC

Posted on by
Reply

One discussion this week included nodal management after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC).

Reference: Pilewskie M and Morrow M. Axillary nodal management following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. JAMA Oncology. 2017 Apr 1;3(4):549-555.

Summary: The increasing use of NAC has raised questions about the optimal approach to the axilla, including accuracy and timing of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in patients who are clinically node negative (cN0) at presentation, use of NAC to avoid axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in patients presenting with node-positive disease, and the relative importance of pre-and post-NAC stage in predicting the risk of locoregional recurrence (LRR).

The decrease in nodal metastases in cN0 patients undergoing post-NAC axillary staging and the increasing rates of pCR in the breast in patients treated with current chemotherapy regimens led to the study of SLNB among patients presenting with cN+ disease. Table 3 (below) summarizes data from three prospective, multi-institutional trials assessing the accuracy of SLNB after NAC among node-positive patients.

SLNB

The authors conclude: NAC reduces the need for ALND, and SLNB is an accurate
method of determining nodal status post NAC. The demonstration that SLNB accurately stages the axilla after NAC regardless of the presenting nodal stage (cN0, cN1) provides an important rationale for the use of NAC for axillary downstaging in patients who are candidates for breast-conserving surgery at presentation or who desire mastectomy. SLN identification rates and FNRs in those who are cN0 are similar to those seen with initial SLN surgery, and nodal recurrence after a negative SLNB is uncommon.

 

Additional Reading: Boughey JC, et al. Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with node-positive breast cancer: the ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance) clinical trial. JAMA. 2013 Oct 9;310(14):1455-1461. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.278932.

Restrictive vs liberal red-cell transfusion strategy: the Transfusions Requirements in Critical Care (TRICC) trial

Posted on by
Reply

One discussion this week included the TRICC trial.

Reference: Herbert PC, et al…the Transfusion Requirements in Critical Care Investigators for the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. A multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial of transfusion requirements in critical care. NEJM. 1999 Feb 11;340(6):409-417.

Summary:  The aim of the study was to determine whether a restrictive strategy of red-cell transfusion and a liberal strategy produced equivalent results in critically ill patients, we compared the rates of death from all causes at 30 days and the severity of organ dysfunction.

Methods: Between 1994 and 1997, the trial enrolled 838 critically ill patients with euvolemia after initial treatment who had hemoglobin concentrations of less than 9.0 g per deciliter within 72 hours after admission to the intensive care unit and randomly assigned 418 patients to a restrictive strategy of transfusion, in which red cells were transfused if the hemoglobin concentration dropped below 7.0 g per deciliter and hemoglobin concentrations were maintained at 7.0 to 9.0 g per deciliter, and 420 patients to a liberal strategy, in which transfusions were given when the hemoglobin concentration fell below 10.0 g per deciliter and hemoglobin concentrations were maintained at 10.0 to 12.0 g per deciliter.

Results: The use of a threshold for red-cell transfusion as low as 7.0 g of hemoglobin per deciliter, combined with maintenance of hemoglobin concentrations in the range of 7.0 to 9.0 g per deciliter, was at least as effective as and possibly superior to a liberal transfusion strategy (threshold, 10.0 g per deciliter; maintenance range, 10.0 to 12.0) in critically ill patients with normovolemia. There was a trend toward decreased 30-day mortality among patients who were treated according to the restrictive transfusion strategy. The significant differences in mortality rates during hospitalization, rates of cardiac complications, and rates of organ dysfunction all favored the restrictive strategy.

TRICC trial

Overall, 30-day mortality was similar in the two groups (18.7 percent vs. 23.3 percent, P= 0.11). However, the rates were significantly lower with the restrictive transfusion strategy among patients who were less acutely ill — those with an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of < or =20 (8.7 percent in the restrictive-strategy group and 16.1 percent in the liberal-strategy group; P=0.03) — and among patients who were less than 55 years of age (5.7 percent and 13.0 percent, respectively; P=0.02), but not among patients with clinically significant cardiac disease (20.5 percent and 22.9 percent, respectively; P=0.69). The mortality rate during hospitalization was significantly lower in the restrictive-strategy group (22.3 percent vs. 28.1 percent, P=0.05).

Conclusion:  On the basis of the trial’s results, the authors recommend that critically ill patients receive red-cell transfusions when their hemoglobin concentrations fall below 7.0 g per deciliter and that hemoglobin concentrations should be maintained between 7.0 and 9.0 g per deciliter. The diversity of the patients enrolled in this trial and the consistency of the results suggest that these conclusions may be generalized to most critically ill patients, with the possible exception of patients with active coronary ischemic syndromes.