Hypothermia and postconditioning after cardiopulmonary resuscitation reduce cardiac dysfunction by modulating inflammation, apoptosis and remodeling

Background: Mild therapeutic hypothermia following cardiac arrest is neuroprotective, but its effect on myocardial dysfunction that is a critical issue following resuscitation is not clear. This study sought to examine whether hypothermia and the combination of hypothermia and pharmacological postconditioning are cardioprotective in a model of cardiopulmonary resuscitation following acute myocardial ischemia. Methodology/Principal Findings: Thirty pigs (28–34 kg) were subjected to cardiac arrest following left anterior descending coronary artery ischemia. After 7 minutes of ventricular fibrillation and 2 minutes of basic life support, advanced cardiac life support was started according to the current AHA guidelines. After successful return of spontaneous circulation (n = 21), coronary perfusion was reestablished after 60 minutes of occlusion, and animals were randomized to either normothermia at 38°C, hypothermia at 33°C or hypothermia at 33°C combined with sevoflurane (each group n = 7) for 24 hours. The effects on cardiac damage especially on inflammation, apoptosis, and remodeling were studied using cellular and molecular approaches. Five animals were sham operated. Animals treated with hypothermia had lower troponin T levels (p<0.01), reduced infarct size (34±7 versus 57±12%; p<0.05) and improved left ventricular function compared to normothermia (p<0.05). Hypothermia was associated with a reduction in: (i) immune cell infiltration, (ii) apoptosis, (iii) IL-1beta and IL-6 mRNA up-regulation, and (iv) IL-1beta protein expression (p<0.05). Moreover, decreased matrix metalloproteinase-9 activity was detected in the ischemic myocardium after treatment with mild hypothermia. Sevoflurane conferred additional protective effects although statistic significance was not reached. Conclusions/Significance: Hypothermia reduced myocardial damage and dysfunction after cardiopulmonary resuscitation possible via a reduced rate of apoptosis and pro-inflammatory cytokine expression

Partial pancreatoduodenectomy versus duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection in chronic pancreatitis: the multicentre, randomised, controlled, double-blind ChroPac trial

Background There is substantial uncertainty regarding the optimal surgical treatment for chronic pancreatitis. Short-term outcomes have been found to be better after duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR) than after partial pancreatoduodenectomy. Therefore, we designed the multicentre ChroPac trial to investigate the long-term outcomes of patients with chronic pancreatitis within 24 months after surgery. Methods This randomised, controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, superiority trial was done in 18 hospitals across Europe. Patients with chronic pancreatitis who were planned for elective surgical treatment were randomly assigned to DPPHR or partial pancreatoduodenectomy with a central web-based randomisation tool. The primary endpoint was mean quality of life within 24 months after surgery, measured with the physical functioning scale of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Primary analysis included all patients who underwent one of the assigned procedures; safety analysis included all patients who underwent surgical intervention (categorised into groups as treated). Patients and outcome assessors were masked to group assignment. The trial was registered, ISRCTN38973832. Recruitment was completed on Sept 3, 2013. Findings Between Sept 10, 2009, and Sept 3, 2013, 250 patients were randomly assigned to DPPHR (n=125) or partial pancreatoduodenectomy (n=125), of whom 226 patients (115 in the DPPHR group and 111 in the partial pancreatoduodenectomy group) were analysed. No difference in quality of life was seen between the groups within 24 months after surgery (75.3 [SD 16.4] for partial pancreatoduodenectomy vs 73.0 [16.4] for DPPHR; mean difference -2.3, 95% CI -6.6 to 2.0; p=0.284). The incidence and severity of serious adverse events did not differ between the groups. 70 (64%) of 109 patients in the DPPHR group and 61 (52%) of 117 patients in the partial pancreatoduodenectomy group had at least one serious adverse event, with the most common being reoperations (for reasons other than chronic pancreatitis), gastrointestinal problems, and other surgical morbidity. Interpretation No differences in quality of life after surgery for chronic pancreatitis were seen between the interventions. Results from single-centre trials showing superiority for DPPHR were not confirmed in the multicentre setting