OBJECTIVE:Ethyl pyruvate (EP) is an investigational drug that has been shown to protect animals in several models of critical illness including myocardial or mesenteric ischemia/reperfusion injury, sepsis, and hemorrhagic shock. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety of EP administration to patients undergoing higher-risk cardiac surgery and to obtain preliminary efficacy data for the prevention of single and multisystem organ dysfunction. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. SETTING:Thirteen US hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: High-risk (Parsonnet risk score >15) patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft and/or cardiac valvular surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. INTERVENTIONS: Subjects were randomized to placebo or EP (7,500 mg administered intravenously starting after the induction of general anesthesia followed by 5 more doses of 7,500 mg administered every 6 hours). The mean body weight (83 kg), corresponding to a dose of 90 mg/kg at each of the 6 dosing intervals, exceeds the dose of 40 mg/kg shown to be effective in many animal models. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary composite endpoint consisted of any of the following occurring within 28 days postoperatively: death, mechanical ventilation >48 hours postoperatively, acute renal injury/failure using the established RIFLE criteria, or need for vasoconstrictors >48 hours postoperatively. One hundred two patients were studied (placebo n = 53 and EP n = 49). No statistically significant differences were observed between groups with regard to clinical parameters or markers of systemic inflammation. CONCLUSION: Despite positive results in numerous animal models, the administration of EP does not appear to confer any benefit to cardiac surgical patients undergoing CPB.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE:Ethyl pyruvate (EP) is an investigational drug that has been shown to protect animals in several models of critical illness including myocardial or mesenteric ischemia/reperfusion injury, sepsis, and hemorrhagic shock. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety of EP administration to patients undergoing higher-risk cardiac surgery and to obtain preliminary efficacy data for the prevention of single and multisystem organ dysfunction. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: Thirteen US hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: High-risk (Parsonnet risk score >15) patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft and/or cardiac valvular surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. INTERVENTIONS: Subjects were randomized to placebo or EP (7,500 mg administered intravenously starting after the induction of general anesthesia followed by 5 more doses of 7,500 mg administered every 6 hours). The mean body weight (83 kg), corresponding to a dose of 90 mg/kg at each of the 6 dosing intervals, exceeds the dose of 40 mg/kg shown to be effective in many animal models. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary composite endpoint consisted of any of the following occurring within 28 days postoperatively: death, mechanical ventilation >48 hours postoperatively, acute renal injury/failure using the established RIFLE criteria, or need for vasoconstrictors >48 hours postoperatively. One hundred two patients were studied (placebo n = 53 and EP n = 49). No statistically significant differences were observed between groups with regard to clinical parameters or markers of systemic inflammation. CONCLUSION: Despite positive results in numerous animal models, the administration of EP does not appear to confer any benefit to cardiac surgical patients undergoing CPB.
Authors: Ralph E Hurd; Yi-Fen Yen; Dirk Mayer; Albert Chen; David Wilson; Susan Kohler; Robert Bok; Daniel Vigneron; John Kurhanewicz; James Tropp; Daniel Spielman; Adolf Pfefferbaum Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: R Clive Landis; Jeremiah R Brown; David Fitzgerald; Donald S Likosky; Linda Shore-Lesserson; Robert A Baker; John W Hammon Journal: J Extra Corpor Technol Date: 2014-09
Authors: Robert S Crawford; Hassan Albadawi; Marvin D Atkins; John J Jones; Mark F Conrad; William G Austen; Mitchell P Fink; Michael T Watkins Journal: J Trauma Date: 2011-01
Authors: Alexander J Muller; James B DuHadaway; Daniel Jaller; Peter Curtis; Richard Metz; George C Prendergast Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2010-02-16 Impact factor: 12.701