BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury is a common complication after open total aortic arch replacement but lacks effective preventive strategies. Remote ischemic preconditioning has controversial results of its benefit to the kidney and may perform better in high-risk patients of acute kidney injury. We investigated whether remote ischemic preconditioning would prevent postoperative acute kidney injury after open total aortic arch replacement. METHODS: We enrolled 130 patients scheduled for open total aortic arch replacement and randomized them to receive either remote ischemic preconditioning (4 cycles of 5-minute right upper limb ischemia and 5-minute reperfusion) or sham preconditioning (4 cycles of 5-minute right upper limb pseudo ischemia and 5-minute reperfusion), both via blood pressure cuff inflation and deflation. The primary end point was the incidence of acute kidney injury within 7 days after the surgery defined by the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes criteria. Secondary end point included short-term clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Significantly fewer patients developed postoperative acute kidney injury with remote ischemic preconditioning compared with sham (55.4% vs 73.8%; absolute risk reduction, 18.5%; 95% CI, 2.3%–34.6%; P = .028). Remote ischemic preconditioning significantly reduced acute kidney injury stage II–III (10.8% vs 35.4%; P = .001). Remote ischemic preconditioning shortened the mechanical ventilation duration (18 hours [interquartile range, 14–33] versus 25 hours [interquartile range, 17–48]; P = .01), whereas no significant differences were observed between groups in other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Remote ischemic preconditioning prevented acute kidney injury after open total aortic arch replacement, especially severe acute kidney injury and shortened mechanical ventilation duration. The observed renoprotective effects of remote ischemic preconditioning require further investigation in both clinical research and the underlying mechanism.

No abstract

Compared with off-pump CABG, 1-stop hybrid coronary revascularization was associated with benefits such as less postoperative bleeding and blood transfusion requirements without significantly increasing the additional risk of acute kidney injury.

No abstract

Background: We sought to investigate the best degree of hypothermic cardiac arrest (HCA) in type A aortic dissection (TAAD) with a cohort of 1,018 cases receiving total arch replacement from 2013 to 2018 in Fuwai Hospital.Method: The cohort was divided by DHCA (≤24°C, n = 580) vs. MHCA (>24°C, n = 438), and interquartile range (Q1–Q4). Primary endpoints included mortality, stroke, paraplegia, and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), which were summarized as composite major outcomes (CMO).Results: The Odds Ratio (OR) of CMO for MHCA was 0.7 (95% CI: 0.5–1.0, p = 0.06) (unadjusted) and 0.6 (95% CI: 0.4–1.0, p = 0.055) (adjusted). DHCA group tended to have a significantly longer CPB time (175.6 ± 45.6 vs. 166.8 ± 49.8 min, p = 0.003), longer hospital stay (16.0 ± 13.6 vs. 13.5 ± 6.8 days, p < 0.001), and ICU stay [5.0 (3.9–6.6) vs. 3.8 (2.0–5.6) days]. A significantly greater blood loss was observed in DHCA group, with a greater requirement for RBC and platelet transfusion. Of note, MHCA showed a significant protective effect (60% risk reduction) for older patients (above 60 years) (OR 0.4; 95% CI: 0.2–0.8; p = 0.009). By quartering, Q1 had significantly higher mortality (10.9%) than Q4 (5.2%) (p = 0.035). For other comparisons, the gap was significantly widened in quartering between Q1 and Q4, i.e., the lower the temperature, the worse the outcomes, and vice versa. Propensity score matching and sensitivity analyses confirmed the above findings.Conclusions: A paradigm change from DHCA to MHCA may be encouraged in TAAD arch operation, especially for the elderly.