Effect of COMBinAtion therapy with remote ischemic conditioning and exenatide on the Myocardial Infarct size: a two-by-two factorial randomized trial (COMBAT-MI)

Remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) and the GLP-1 analog exenatide activate different cardioprotective pathways and may have additive effects on infarct size (IS). Here, we aimed to assess the efficacy of RIC as compared with sham procedure, and of exenatide, as compared with placebo, and the interaction between both, to reduce IS in humans. We designed a two-by-two factorial, randomized controlled, blinded, multicenter, clinical trial. Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction receiving primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) within 6 h of symptoms were randomized to RIC or sham procedure and exenatide or matching placebo. The primary outcome was IS measured by late gadolinium enhancement in cardiac magnetic resonance performed 3–7 days after PPCI. The secondary outcomes were myocardial salvage index, transmurality index, left ventricular ejection fraction and relative microvascular obstruction volume. A total of 378 patients were randomly allocated, and after applying exclusion criteria, 222 patients were available for analysis. There were no significant interactions between the two randomization factors on the primary or secondary outcomes. IS was similar between groups for the RIC (24 ± 11.8% in the RIC group vs 23.7 ± 10.9% in the sham group, P = 0.827) and the exenatide hypotheses (25.1 ± 11.5% in the exenatide group vs 22.5 ± 10.9% in the placebo group, P = 0.092). There were no effects with either RIC or exenatide on the secondary outcomes. Unexpected adverse events or side effects of RIC and exenatide were not observed. In conclusion, neither RIC nor exenatide, or its combination, were able to reduce IS in STEMI patients when administered as an adjunct to PPCI

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AimThe SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery.MethodsThis was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin.ResultsOverall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P ConclusionOne in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease