Conventional versus minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: protocol for a randomised controlled trial (COMICS)

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.

2021 MiECTiS focused update on the 2016 position paper for the use of minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation in cardiac surgery

The landmark 2016 Minimal Invasive Extracorporeal Technologies International Society (MiECTiS) position paper promoted the creation of a common language between cardiac surgeons, anesthesiologists and perfusionists which led to the development of a stable framework that paved the way for the advancement of minimal invasive perfusion and related technologies. The current expert consensus document offers an update in areas for which new evidence has emerged. In the light of published literature, modular minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation (MiECC) has been established as a safe and effective perfusion technique that increases biocompatibility and ultimately ensures perfusion safety in all adult cardiac surgical procedures, including re-operations, aortic arch and emergency surgery. Moreover, it was recognized that incorporation of MiECC strategies advances minimal invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) by combining reduced surgical trauma with minimal physiologic derangements. Minimal Invasive Extracorporeal Technologies International Society considers MiECC as a physiologically-based multidisciplinary strategy for performing cardiac surgery that is associated with significant evidence-based clinical benefit that has accrued over the years. Widespread adoption of this technology is thus strongly advocated to obtain additional healthcare benefit while advancing patient care.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for critically ill adults

BACKGROUND

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) may provide benefit in certain populations of adults, including those with severe cardiac failure, severe respiratory failure, and cardiac arrest. However, it is also associated with serious short- and long-term complications, and there remains a lack of high-quality evidence to guide practice. Recently several large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published, therefore, we undertook an update of our previous systematic review published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether venovenous (VV), venoarterial (VA), or ECMO cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) improve mortality compared to conventional cardiopulmonary support in critically ill adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was March 2022. The search was limited to English language only.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs, quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs that compared VV ECMO, VA ECMO or ECPR to conventional support in critically ill adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was 1. all-cause mortality at day 90 to one year. Our secondary outcomes were 2. length of hospital stay, 3. survival to discharge, 4. disability, 5. adverse outcomes/safety events, 6. health-related quality of life, 7. longer-term health status, and 8. cost-effectiveness. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Five RCTs met our inclusion criteria, with four new studies being added to the original review (total 757 participants). Two studies were of VV ECMO (429 participants), one VA ECMO (41 participants), and two ECPR (285 participants). Four RCTs had a low risk of bias and one was unclear, and the overall certainty of the results (GRADE score) was moderate, reduced primarily due to indirectness of the study populations and interventions. ECMO was associated with a reduction in 90-day to one-year mortality compared to conventional treatment (risk ratio [RR] 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70 to 0.92; P = 0.002, I2 = 11%). This finding remained stable after performing a sensitivity analysis by removing the single trial with an uncertain risk of bias. Subgroup analyses did not reveal a significant subgroup effect across VV, VA, or ECPR modes (P = 0.73). Four studies reported an increased risk of major hemorrhage with ECMO (RR 3.32, 95% CI 1.90 to 5.82; P < 0.001), while two studies reported no difference in favorable neurologic outcome (RR 2.83, 95% CI 0.36 to 22.42; P = 0.32). Other secondary outcomes were not consistently reported across the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this updated systematic review, which included four additional RCTs, we found that ECMO was associated with a reduction in day-90 to one-year all-cause mortality, as well as three times increased risk of bleeding. However, the certainty of this result was only low to moderate, limited by a low number of small trials, clinical heterogeneity, and indirectness across studies.