Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) is reported to reduce biomarkers of ischemic and reperfusion injury in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, but uncertainty about clinical outcomes remains. We conducted a prospective, double-blind, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving adults who were scheduled for elective cardiac surgery requiring cardiopulmonary bypass under total anesthesia with intravenous propofol. The trial compared upper-limb RIPC with a sham intervention. The primary end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or acute renal failure up to the time of hospital discharge. Secondary end points included the occurrence of any individual component of the primary end point by day 90. A total of 1403 patients underwent randomization. The full analysis set comprised 1385 patients (692 in the RIPC group and 693 in the sham-RIPC group). There was no significant between-group difference in the rate of the composite primary end point (99 patients [14.3%] in the RIPC group and 101 [14.6%] in the sham-RIPC group, P=0.89) or of any of the individual components: death (9 patients [1.3%] and 4 [0.6%], respectively; P=0.21), myocardial infarction (47 [6.8%] and 63 [9.1%], P=0.12), stroke (14 [2.0%] and 15 [2.2%], P=0.79), and acute renal failure (42 [6.1%] and 35 [5.1%], P=0.45). The results were similar in the per-protocol analysis. No treatment effect was found in any subgroup analysis. No significant differences between the RIPC group and the sham-RIPC group were seen in the level of troponin release, the duration of mechanical ventilation, the length of stay in the intensive care unit or the hospital, new onset of atrial fibrillation, and the incidence of postoperative delirium. No RIPC-related adverse events were observed. Upper-limb RIPC performed while patients were under propofol-induced anesthesia did not show a relevant benefit among patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery. (Funded by the German Research Foundation; RIPHeart ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01067703.)

To determine whether the implementation of patient blood management (PBM) is effective to decrease the use of red blood cell without impairment of patient's safety. The World Health Organization encouraged all member states to implement PBM programs employing multiple combined strategies to increase and preserve autologous erythrocyte volume to minimize red blood cell transfusions. Data regarding safety issues are not sufficiently available. In this prospective, multicenter study, surgical inpatients from four German University Hospitals were analyzed before (pre-PBM) and after the implementation of PBM. PBM program included multiple measures (ie, preoperative optimization of hemoglobin levels, blood-sparing techniques, and standardization of transfusion practice). Primary aim was to show noninferiority of the PBM cohort with a margin of 0.5%. Secondary endpoints included red blood cell utilization. A total of 129,719 patients discharged between July 2012 and June 2015 with different inclusion periods for pre-PBM (54,513 patients) and PBM (75,206 patients) were analyzed. The primary endpoint was 6.53% in the pre-PBM versus 6.34% in the PBM cohort. The noninferiority aim was achieved (P < 0.001). Incidence of acute renal failure decreased in the PBM cohort (2.39% vs 1.67%; P < 0.001, regression model). The mean number of red blood cell transfused per patient was reduced from 1.21 ± 0.05 to 1.00 ± 0.05 (relative change by 17%, P < 0.001). The data presented show that implementation of PBM with a more conscious handling of transfusion practice can be achieved even in large hospitals without impairment of patient's safety. Further studies should elucidate which PBM measures are most clinically and cost effective. PBM-Study ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01820949.