Conventional versus minimally invasive extra-corporeal circulation in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: A randomized controlled trial (COMICS)

Gianni D Angelini,Barnaby C Reeves,Lucy A Culliford,Rachel Maishman,Chris A Rogers,Kyriakos Anastasiadis,Polychronis Antonitsis,Helena Argiriadou,Thierry Carrel,Dorothée Keller,Andreas Liebold,Fatma Ashkaniani,Aschraf El-Essawi,Ingo Breitenbach,Clinton Lloyd,Mark Bennett,Alex Cale,Serdar Gunaydin,Eren Gunertem,Farouk Oueida,Ibrahim M Yassin,Cyril Serrick,John M Murkin,Vivek Rao,Marco Moscarelli,Ignazzo Condello,Prakash Punjabi,Cha Rajakaruna,Apostolos Deliopoulos,Daniel Bone,William Lansdown,Narain Moorjani,Sarah Dennis
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02676591241258054
2024-06-07
Perfusion
Abstract:Perfusion, Ahead of Print. IntroductionThe 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionsMiECC 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.
cardiac & cardiovascular systems,peripheral vascular disease
What problem does this paper attempt to address?