| 1. |
- Boano, Gabriella, et al.
(författare)
-
Biochemical response to cryothermal and radiofrequency exposure of the human myocardium at surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation : a randomized controlled trial
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Translational Medicine Communications. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 2396-832X. ; 5
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Surgical cryothermia and radiofrequency (RF) ablations for atrial fibrillation (AF) seem to result in similar sinus rhythm restoration, but the biochemical consequences of the two methods are unclear. We aimed to compare the biochemical responses to the two ablative methods in concomitant mitral valve surgery (MVS).Methods: Sixty mitral valve surgery patients with AF were prospectively included. Forty-one patients planned for ablation were randomized to cryothermia (n = 20) or radiofrequency (n = 21) ablation and 19 served as controls. Markers for myocardial injury, inflammation, cell stress, apoptosis, and heart failure were analyzed pre- and postoperatively at different time points.Results: Troponin T and creatine kinase isoenzyme MB (CK-MB) peak levels were significantly higher in the cryothermia group compared with the RF group (12,805 [6140–15,700] vs. 2790 [1880–4180] ng/L; P = 0.002 and 271 [217–357] vs. 79 [66–93] μg/L; P < 0.001, respectively). Both groups had significantly higher levels than the no-ablation group. There were no group differences in C-reactive protein (CRP) and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), but there were correlations between pre- and postoperative levels of both CRP (rs = 0.41, P = 0.001) and NT-proBNP (rs = 0.48, P < 0.001). Protease-activated receptor 1 (PAR-1) and heat shock protein 27 (HSP27) were significantly increased in the cryoablation group.Conclusions: Cryoablation results in a larger myocardial injury and possibly more elevated apoptotic activity and cell stress compared with the RF technique. The type of ablation device did not have any significant influence on the postoperative inflammatory response nor on the early postoperative levels of NT-proBNP.
|
|
| 2. |
- Drude, Natascha Ingrid, et al.
(författare)
-
Planning preclinical confirmatory multicenter trials to strengthen translation from basic to clinical research : a multi-stakeholder workshop report
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Translational Medicine Communications. - : Springer Nature. - 2396-832X. ; 7:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Clinical translation from bench to bedside often remains challenging even despite promising preclinical evidence. Among many drivers like biological complexity or poorly understood disease pathology, preclinical evidence often lacks desired robustness. Reasons include low sample sizes, selective reporting, publication bias, and consequently inflated effect sizes. In this context, there is growing consensus that confirmatory multicenter studies -by weeding out false positives- represent an important step in strengthening and generating preclinical evidence before moving on to clinical research. However, there is little guidance on what such a preclinical confirmatory study entails and when it should be conducted in the research trajectory. To close this gap, we organized a workshop to bring together statisticians, clinicians, preclinical scientists, and meta-researcher to discuss and develop recommendations that are solution-oriented and feasible for practitioners. Herein, we summarize and review current approaches and outline strategies that provide decision-critical guidance on when to start and subsequently how to plan a confirmatory study. We define a set of minimum criteria and strategies to strengthen validity before engaging in a confirmatory preclinical trial, including sample size considerations that take the inherent uncertainty of initial (exploratory) studies into account. Beyond this specific guidance, we highlight knowledge gaps that require further research and discuss the role of confirmatory studies in translational biomedical research. In conclusion, this workshop report highlights the need for close interaction and open and honest debate between statisticians, preclinical scientists, meta-researchers (that conduct research on research), and clinicians already at an early stage of a given preclinical research trajectory.
|
|
