SummaryBackgroundRemote ischaemic conditioning with transient ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm has been shown to reduce myocardial infarct size in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). We investigated whether remote ischaemic conditioning could reduce the incidence of cardiac death and hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months.MethodsWe did an international investigator-initiated, prospective, single-blind, randomised controlled trial (CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI) at 33 centres across the UK, Denmark, Spain, and Serbia. Patients (age >18 years) with suspected STEMI and who were eligible for PPCI were randomly allocated (1:1, stratified by centre with a permuted block method) to receive standard treatment (including a sham simulated remote ischaemic conditioning intervention at UK sites only) or remote ischaemic conditioning treatment (intermittent ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm through four cycles of 5-min inflation and 5-min deflation of an automated cuff device) before PPCI. Investigators responsible for data collection and outcome assessment were masked to treatment allocation. The primary combined endpoint was cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02342522) and is completed.FindingsBetween Nov 6, 2013, and March 31, 2018, 5401 patients were randomly allocated to either the control group (n=2701) or the remote ischaemic conditioning group (n=2700). After exclusion of patients upon hospital arrival or loss to follow-up, 2569 patients in the control group and 2546 in the intervention group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At 12 months post-PPCI, the Kaplan-Meier-estimated frequencies of cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure (the primary endpoint) were 220 (8·6%) patients in the control group and 239 (9·4%) in the remote ischaemic conditioning group (hazard ratio 1·10 [95% CI 0·91–1·32], p=0·32 for intervention versus control). No important unexpected adverse events or side effects of remote ischaemic conditioning were observed.InterpretationRemote ischaemic conditioning does not improve clinical outcomes (cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure) at 12 months in patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI.FundingBritish Heart Foundation, University College London Hospitals/University College London Biomedical Research Centre, Danish Innovation Foundation, Novo Nordisk Foundation, TrygFonden.

No abstract

Objective: To compare the efficacy of mental health professional versus primary care nurse-delivered telehealth cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and supportive care (SC) treatments for chronic low back pain, using data from 2 separate randomized controlled trials. Both trials were completed in the same hospital and used the same study design, research team, and outcome measures. Materials and Methods: Participants from Study 1 (Mental Health Professional Study) (N=66; 2007 to 2011) and Study 2 (Nursing Study) (N=61; 2012 to 2016) were patients with chronic low back pain (≥4/10 intensity) randomized to either an 8-week CBT or an SC telehealth condition matched for contact frequency, format, and time. Participants completed validated measures of improvement in back pain disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ]), pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale [NRS]), depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory 2 [BDI-2]), pain catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale [PCS]), and overall improvement (Global Clinical Impressions [GCI]). Results: Intent-to-treat analyses at posttreatment showed that scores on the RMDQ (Cohen d=0.33 to 0.55), NRS (d=0.45 to 0.90), PCS (d=0.21 to 0.41), and GCI (18.5% to 39.1%) improved significantly in both studies and in both treatments from pretreatment to posttreatment. Changes in BDI scores were inconsistent (d=−0.06 to 0.51). The analyses revealed no significant differences in treatment efficacy between the trained nurse versus the mental health professionals on the RMDQ, NRS, PCS, or GCI measures (P>0.20). Discussion: Results from these clinical trials suggest that the benefits of home-based, telehealth-delivered CBT and SC treatments for chronic back pain were comparable when delivered by a primary care nurse or mental health professional.

No abstract