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.)

The trace element selenium is of high importance for many of the body’s regulatory and metabolic functions. Balanced selenium levels are essential, whereas dysregulation can cause harm. A rapidly increasing number of studies characterizes the wide range of selenium dependent functions in the human body and elucidates the complex and multiple physiological and pathophysiological interactions of selenium and selenoproteins. For the majority of selenium dependent enzymes, several biological functions have already been identified, like regulation of the inflammatory response, antioxidant properties and the proliferation/differentiation of immune cells. Although the potential role of selenium in the development and progression of cardiovascular disease has been investigated for decades, both observational and interventional studies of selenium supplementation remain inconclusive and are considered in this review. This review covers current knowledge of the role of selenium and selenoproteins in the human body and its functional role in the cardiovascular system. The relationships between selenium intake/status and various health outcomes, in particular cardiomyopathy, myocardial ischemia/infarction and reperfusion injury are reviewed. We describe, in depth, selenium as a biomarker in coronary heart disease and highlight the significance of selenium supplementation for patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Background: Gastrointestinal (GI) dysfunction is frequent in the critically ill but can be overlooked as a result of the lack of standardization of the diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. We aimed to develop a research agenda for GI dysfunction for future research. We systematically reviewed the current knowledge on a broad range of subtopics from a specific viewpoint of GI dysfunction, highlighting the remaining areas of uncertainty and suggesting future studies. Methods: This systematic scoping review and research agenda was conducted following successive steps: (1) identify clinically important subtopics within the field of GI function which warrant further research; (2) systematically review the literature for each subtopic using PubMed, CENTRAL and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; (3) summarize evidence for each subtopic; (4) identify areas of uncertainty; (5) formulate and refine study proposals that address these subtopics; and (6) prioritize study proposals via sequential voting rounds. Results: Five major themes were identified: (1) monitoring, (2) associations between GI function and outcome, (3) GI function and nutrition, (4) management of GI dysfunction and (5) pathophysiological mechanisms. Searches on 17 subtopics were performed and evidence summarized. Several areas of uncertainty were identified, six of them needing consensus process. Study proposals ranked among the first ten included: prevention and management of diarrhoea; management of upper and lower feeding intolerance, including indications for post-pyloric feeding and opioid antagonists; acute gastrointestinal injury grading as a bedside tool; the role of intra-abdominal hypertension in the development and monitoring of GI dysfunction and in the development of non-occlusive mesenteric ischaemia; and the effect of proton pump inhibitors on the microbiome in critical illness. Conclusions: Current evidence on GI dysfunction is scarce, partially due to the lack of precise definitions. The use of core sets of monitoring and outcomes are required to improve the consistency of future studies. We propose several areas for consensus process and outline future study projects.

Nutrition support is a necessary therapy for critically ill cardiac surgery patients. However, conclusive evidence for this population, consisting of well-conducted clinical trials is lacking. To clarify optimal strategies to improve outcomes, an international multidisciplinary group of 25 experts from different clinical specialties from Germany, Canada, Greece, USA and Russia discussed potential approaches to identify patients who may benefit from nutrition support, when best to initiate nutrition support, and the potential use of pharmaco-nutrition to modulate the inflammatory response to cardiopulmonary bypass. Despite conspicuous knowledge and evidence gaps, a rational nutritional support therapy is presented to benefit patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Nutrition support is increasingly recognized as a clinically relevant aspect of the intensive care treatment of cardiac surgery patients. However, evidence from adequate large-scale studies evaluating its clinical significance for patients’ mid- to long-term outcome remains sparse. Considering nutrition support as a key component in the perioperative treatment of these critically ill patients led us to review and discuss our understanding of the metabolic response to the inflammatory burst induced by cardiac surgery. In addition, we discuss how to identify patients who may benefit from nutrition therapy, when to start nutritional interventions, present evidence about the use of enteral and parenteral nutrition and the potential role of pharmaconutrition in cardiac surgery patients. Although the clinical setting of cardiac surgery provides advantages due to its scheduled insult and predictable inflammatory response, researchers and clinicians face lack of evidence and several limitations in the clinical routine, which are critically considered and discussed in this paper.