Key result
Remote ischemic conditioning fails to improve free flap tissue oxygen saturation versus sham.
Why the study?
Flap failure after microvascular reconstructive surgery is caused by reperfusion injury and tissue hypoperfusion, and the protective effects of remote ischemic conditioning on flap oxygenation were uncertain.
Does remote ischemic conditioning improve tissue oxygen saturation of the flap in adult patients undergoing free flap transfer surgery for head and neck cancer?
RCT (n=50)
Double-blind
Block randomization (blocks of four)
No
Does remote ischemic conditioning improve tissue oxygen saturation of the flap in adult patients undergoing free flap transfer surgery for head and neck cancer?
Absolute Event Rate: 85% vs 83%
p-value: p=0.471
Remote ischemic conditioning did not improve tissue oxygenation of transferred free flaps in head and neck cancer reconstructive surgery, despite showing organ-protective effects in experimental models.
Does not support remote ischemic conditioning for flap oxygenation in head and neck reconstruction; challenges translation of experimental benefits.
Purpose: Flap failure after microvascular reconstructive surgery is a rare but devastating complication caused by reperfusion injury and tissue hypoperfusion. Remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) provides protection against ischemia/reperfusion injury and reduces tissue infarction. We hypothesized that RIC would enhance flap oxygenation and exert organ-protective effects during head and neck free flap reconstructive surgery.Methods: Adult patients undergoing free flap transfer surgery for head and neck cancer were randomized to receive either RIC or sham-RIC during surgery. RIC consisted of four cycles of 5-min ischemia and 5-min reperfusion applied to the upper or lower extremity. The primary endpoint, tissue oxygen saturation of the flap, was measured by near-infrared spectroscopy on the first postoperative day. Organ-protective effects of RIC were evaluated with infarct size of rat hearts perfused with plasma dialysate from patients received RIC or sham-RIC.Results: Between April 2018 and July 2019, 50 patients were randomized (each n=25) and 46 were analyzed in the RIC (n=23) or sham-RIC (n=23) groups. Tissue oxygen saturation of the flap was similar between the groups (85 ± 12% vs 83 ± 9% in the RIC vs sham-RIC groups; P=0.471). Myocardial infarct size after treatment of plasma dialysate was significantly reduced in the RIC group (44 ± 7% to 26 ± 6%; P=0.018) compared to the sham-RIC group (42 ± 6% to 37 ± 7%; P=0.388).Conclusions: RIC did not improve tissue oxygenation of the transferred free flap in head and neck cancer reconstructive surgery. However, there was evidence of organ-protective effects of RIC in experimental models.Registry number of ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03474952
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Min et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in Head and neck cancer undergoing free flap reconstructive surgery (n=50). Remote ischemic conditioning vs. Sham-RIC was evaluated on Tissue oxygen saturation of the flap on the first postoperative day (p=0.471). Remote ischemic conditioning did not significantly improve tissue oxygen saturation of the transferred free flap on the first postoperative day compared to sham (85% vs 83%, P=0.471).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: