Lung recruitment before surfactant administration in extremely preterm neonates with respiratory distress syndrome (IN-REC-SUR-E): a randomised, unblinded, controlled trial

Background: The importance of lung recruitment before surfactant administration has been shown in animal studies. Well designed trials in preterm infants are absent. We aimed to examine whether the application of a recruitment manoeuvre just before surfactant administration, followed by rapid extubation (intubate-recruit-surfactant-extubate [IN-REC-SUR-E]), decreased the need for mechanical ventilation during the first 72 h of life compared with no recruitment manoeuvre (ie, intubate-surfactant-extubate [IN-SUR-E]). Methods: We did a randomised, unblinded, controlled trial in 35 tertiary neonatal intensive care units in Italy. Spontaneously breathing extremely preterm neonates (24 + 0 to 27 + 6 weeks' gestation) reaching failure criteria for continuous positive airway pressure within the first 24 h of life were randomly assigned (1:1) with a minimisation algorithm to IN-REC-SUR-E or IN-SUR-E using an interactive web-based electronic system, stratified by clinical site and gestational age. The primary outcome was the need for mechanical ventilation in the first 72 h of life. Analyses were done in intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations, with a log-binomial regression model correcting for stratification factors to estimate adjusted relative risk (RR). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02482766. Findings: Of 556 infants assessed for eligibility, 218 infants were recruited from Nov 12, 2015, to Sept 23, 2018, and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The requirement for mechanical ventilation during the first 72 h of life was reduced in the IN-REC-SUR-E group (43 [40%] of 107) compared with the IN-SUR-E group (60 [54%] of 111; adjusted RR 0·75, 95% CI 0·57–0·98; p=0·037), with a number needed to treat of 7·2 (95% CI 3·7–135·0). The addition of the recruitment manoeuvre did not adversely affect the safety outcomes of in-hospital mortality (19 [19%] of 101 in the IN-REC-SUR-E group vs 37 [33%] of 111 in the IN-SUR-E group), pneumothorax (four [4%] of 101 vs seven [6%] of 111), or grade 3 or worse intraventricular haemorrhage (12 [12%] of 101 vs 17 [15%] of 111). Interpretation: A lung recruitment manoeuvre just before surfactant administration improved the efficacy of surfactant treatment in extremely preterm neonates compared with the standard IN-SUR-E technique, without increasing the risk of adverse neonatal outcomes. The reduced need for mechanical ventilation during the first 72 h of life might facilitate implementation of a non-invasive respiratory support strategy. Funding: None

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2) : a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86-1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91-1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable