Reduced mitochondrial pyruvate carrier expression in hearts with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction patients: ischemic vs. non-ischemic origin

Introduction and objectivesMitochondrial pyruvate carrier (MPC) mediates the entry of pyruvate into mitochondria, determining whether pyruvate is incorporated into the Krebs cycle or metabolized in the cytosol. In heart failure (HF), a large amount of pyruvate is metabolized to lactate in the cytosol rather than being oxidized inside the mitochondria. Thus, MPC activity or expression might play a key role in the fate of pyruvate during HF. The purpose of this work was to study the levels of the two subunits of this carrier, named MPC1 and MPC2, in human hearts with HF of different etiologies.MethodsProtein and mRNA expression analyses were conducted in cardiac tissues from three donor groups: patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) or idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (IDC), and donors without cardiac pathology (Control). MPC2 plasma levels were determined by ELISA.ResultsSignificant reductions in the levels of MPC1, MPC2, and Sirtuin 3 (SIRT3) were observed in ICM patients compared with the levels in the Control group. However, no statistically significant differences were revealed in the analysis of MPC1 and MPC2 gene expression among the groups. Interestingly, Pyruvate dehydrogenase complex (PDH) subunits expression were increased in the ICM patients. In the case of IDC patients, a significant decrease in MPC1 was observed only when compared with the Control group. Notably, plasma MPC2 levels were found to be elevated in both disease groups compared with that in the Control group.ConclusionDecreases in MPC1 and/or MPC2 levels were detected in the cardiac tissues of HFrEF patients, with ischemic or idiopatic origen, indicating a potential reduction in mitochondrial pyruvate uptake in the heart, which could be linked to unfavorable clinical features

Intraperitoneal drain placement and outcomes after elective colorectal surgery: international matched, prospective, cohort study

Despite current guidelines, intraperitoneal drain placement after elective colorectal surgery remains widespread. Drains were not associated with earlier detection of intraperitoneal collections, but were associated with prolonged hospital stay and increased risk of surgical-site infections.Background Many surgeons routinely place intraperitoneal drains after elective colorectal surgery. However, enhanced recovery after surgery guidelines recommend against their routine use owing to a lack of clear clinical benefit. This study aimed to describe international variation in intraperitoneal drain placement and the safety of this practice. Methods COMPASS (COMPlicAted intra-abdominal collectionS after colorectal Surgery) was a prospective, international, cohort study which enrolled consecutive adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery (February to March 2020). The primary outcome was the rate of intraperitoneal drain placement. Secondary outcomes included: rate and time to diagnosis of postoperative intraperitoneal collections; rate of surgical site infections (SSIs); time to discharge; and 30-day major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade at least III). After propensity score matching, multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to estimate the independent association of the secondary outcomes with drain placement. Results Overall, 1805 patients from 22 countries were included (798 women, 44.2 per cent; median age 67.0 years). The drain insertion rate was 51.9 per cent (937 patients). After matching, drains were not associated with reduced rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.33, 95 per cent c.i. 0.79 to 2.23; P = 0.287) or earlier detection (hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 0.33 to 2.31; P = 0.780) of collections. Although not associated with worse major postoperative complications (OR 1.09, 0.68 to 1.75; P = 0.709), drains were associated with delayed hospital discharge (HR 0.58, 0.52 to 0.66; P < 0.001) and an increased risk of SSIs (OR 2.47, 1.50 to 4.05; P < 0.001). Conclusion Intraperitoneal drain placement after elective colorectal surgery is not associated with earlier detection of postoperative collections, but prolongs hospital stay and increases SSI risk

Intraperitoneal drain placement and outcomes after elective colorectal surgery: international matched, prospective, cohort study

Many surgeons routinely place intraperitoneal drains after elective colorectal surgery. However, enhanced recovery after surgery guidelines recommend against their routine use owing to a lack of clear clinical benefit. This study aimed to describe international variation in intraperitoneal drain placement and the safety of this practice

Safety and efficacy of intraperitoneal drain placement after emergency colorectal surgery. An international, prospective cohort study

Intraperitoneal drains are often placed during emergency colorectal surgery. However, there is a lack of evidence supporting their use. This study aimed to describe the efficacy and safety of intraperitoneal drain placement after emergency colorectal surgery. Method: COMPlicAted intra-abdominal collectionS after colorectal Surgery (COMPASS) is a prospective, international, cohort study into which consecutive adult patients undergoing emergency colorectal surgery were enrolled (from 3 February 2020 to 8 March 2020). The primary outcome was the rate of intraperitoneal drain placement. Secondary outcomes included rate and time-to-diagnosis of postoperative intraperitoneal collections, rate of surgical site infections (SSIs), time to discharge and 30-day major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo III-V). Multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regressions were used to estimate the independent association of the outcomes with drain placement. Results: Some 725 patients (median age 68.0 years; 349 [48.1%] women) from 22 countries were included. The drain insertion rate was 53.7% (389 patients). Following multivariable adjustment, drains were not significantly associated with reduced rates (odds ratio [OR] = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.48-5.02, p = 0.457) or earlier detection (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.61-1.90, p = 0.805) of collections. Drains were not significantly associated with worse major postoperative complications (OR = 1.26, 95% CI: 0.67-2.36, p = 0.478), delayed hospital discharge (HR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.91-1.36, p = 0.303) or increased risk of SSIs (OR = 1.61, 95% CI: 0.87-2.99, p = 0.128). Conclusion: This is the first study investigating placement of intraperitoneal drains following emergency colorectal surgery. The safety and clinical benefit of drains remain uncertain. Equipoise exists for randomized trials to define the safety and efficacy of drains in emergency colorectal surgery