Haller, Maria

ABSTRACT Post-transplantation diabetes mellitus (PTDM) remains a leading complication after solid organ transplantation. Previous international PTDM consensus meetings in 2003 and 2013 provided standardized frameworks to reduce heterogeneity in diagnosis, risk stratification and management. However, the last decade has seen significant advancements in our PTDM knowledge complemented by rapidly changing treatment algorithms for management of diabetes in the general population. In view of these developments, and to ensure reduced variation in clinical practice, a 3rd international PTDM Consensus Meeting was planned and held from 6–8 May 2022 in Vienna, Austria involving global delegates with PTDM expertise to update the previous reports. This update includes opinion statements concerning optimal diagnostic tools, recognition of prediabetes (impaired fasting glucose and/or impaired glucose tolerance), new mechanistic insights, immunosuppression modification, evidence-based strategies to prevent PTDM, treatment hierarchy for incorporating novel glucose-lowering agents and suggestions for the future direction of PTDM research to address unmet needs. Due to the paucity of good quality evidence, consensus meeting participants agreed that making GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) recommendations would be flawed. Although kidney-allograft centric, we suggest that these opinion statements can be appraised by the transplantation community for implementation across different solid organ transplant cohorts. Acknowledging the paucity of published literature, this report reflects consensus expert opinion. Attaining evidence is desirable to ensure establishment of optimized care for any solid organ transplant recipient at risk of, or who develops, PTDM as we strive to improve long-term outcomes.

Background: The efficacy of remote ischaemic conditioning in clinical trials of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or elective percutaneous coronary intervention is controversial. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse whether remote ischaemic conditioning reduces myocardial damage in those patients. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science from inception until December 2017 for randomised clinical trials evaluating remote ischaemic conditioning versus a control group. Two independent reviewers extracted data of 23 trials (2118 patients with STEMI; 2048 patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention) which were meta-analysed using random-effects models. Results: Remote ischaemic conditioning reduced infarct size in STEMI patients when assessed by imaging (mean difference of infarct size as percentage of left ventricle −2.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) –4.37 to −0.48; P=0.01; I2=44%; n=925) or biomarkers related to myocardial injury (peak values of cardiac biomarker release reported as standardised mean difference −0.19, 95% CI −0.37 to −0.02; P=0.03; I2=58%; n=1483) and increased myocardial salvage index (mean difference 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.13; P=0.02; I2=49%; n= 636). Left ventricular ejection fraction was increased when assessed during the first days after STEMI (mean difference 1.53, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.83; P=0.02; I2=28%; n=1192). Remote ischaemic conditioning had no influence on biomarker values after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (standardised mean difference 0.06, 95% CI −0.17 to 0.30; P=0.59). Conclusions: Despite a statistically significant reduction of myocardial damage in STEMI patients, the magnitude of the reduction was small and a significant impact on clinical events is unlikely. With respect to elective percutaneous coronary intervention, remote ischaemic conditioning had no influence on myocardial injury and its use is not supported by our analysis.