Infant Heart Surgery: Central Nervous System Sequelae of Circulatory Arrest (BCAS)

July 28, 2016 updated by: Jane W. Newburger, Boston Children's Hospital
To compare the influence of two surgical anesthetic techniques, hypothermia with circulatory arrest or hypothermia with low-flow bypass perfusion, on neurologic functioning in infants undergoing heart surgery.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

BACKGROUND:

The pediatric medical community has long been concerned about the increased incidence of cerebral dysfunction among newborns with severe cyanotic congenital heart disease. There has been concern about a great number of potential predisposing factors including the effects of hypoxemia and acidosis, trauma during cardiac catheterization, and the duration of prolonged decreased arterial oxygen saturation. Many infants undoubtedly undergo significant brain damage prior to surgery, but may be subject to further insult in the peri-operative period. The proposed trial studied circulatory arrest versus low-flow bypass methods of surgical support in a homogeneous group of patients who were managed in identical fashion in all other aspects of their treatment. Major factors, such as the influence of cardiac catheterization and presurgical status were specifically incorporated into the primary statistical analysis. This was important in order to identify significant predisposing causes of brain injury beyond the surgical techniques being compared, and to increase the power of the comparison.

DESIGN NARRATIVE:

Randomized, partially blinded. Infants were assigned to deep hypothermia and either circulatory arrest or low-flow bypass support during arterial switch surgical repair of transposition of the great arteries. Randomization was stratified by diagnosis (with or without septal defect) and by specific surgeon of three, thus yielding six strata within each treatment group. Randomization was also blocked to minimize imbalances in treatment assignment between strata. The study was partially blinded, in that outcome data were obtained by investigators who were unaware of management, surgical care, and intensive care were standardized. Hemodynamic assessment was made early in the post-operative period. The outcomes of primary interest (magnetic resonance imaging, neurologic examination, and psychometric testing) were reviewed at the one-year evaluation, to maximize relevance to the long-term prognosis. Pre-operative and seven-to-ten day post-operative neurologic examination was also carried out. Developmental status at one year was measured by the Bayley developmental scales and the Fagan test of infant intelligence. Brain function was assessed by neurologic examination at one year. The recruitment period extended from April 1988 to February 1992.

The trial was extended through December 1997 to allow four years of follow-up. The follow-up allowed the assessment of a primary outcome variable in the neurologic domain and a primary outcome variable in the developmental domain. The primary outcome variable of the neurologic examination resulted in an ordered classification of three categories of normal, minor, and major dysfunction, such as apraxia or cerebral palsy. Development was assessed using standardized measures of cognition, behavior, language, attention, and motor skills. The primary outome variable for the developmental evaluation was the intelligence quotient on the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI-R). Secondary outcome variables included measurements of behavior and performance in specific domains of speech and language, visual motor integration, attention, motor function, and temperament.

Beginning in January 1998, the study was extended for an additional four years through December 2001 to compare the effects of the two intraoperative methods with respect to developmental and neurologic status at eight years of age. Developmental status was assessed by the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (primary outcome) and by the presence of learning disabilities and performance in specific neuropsychologic domains (secondary outcomes). Neurologic status was determined by neurologic exam (primary outcome) and by specific types of dysfunction such as motor problems. The study also compared the academic and intellectual performance of the cohort at age eight years to population norms and used the data to identify correlates of the children's eight year outcomes, as well as their development between ages one and eight.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

171

Phase

  • Phase 3

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

No older than 1 year (Child)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Boy and girl infants, up to three months of age, with transposition of the great arteries with or without septal defect.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Boston Children's Hospital

Collaborators

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)

Investigators

  • Jane Newburger, Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

December 1, 1988

Primary Completion (Actual)

February 1, 1992

Study Completion (Actual)

October 1, 1993

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

October 27, 1999

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

October 27, 1999

First Posted (Estimate)

October 28, 1999

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Estimate)

July 29, 2016

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

July 28, 2016

Last Verified

July 1, 2016

More Information

Terms related to this study

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • 59
  • R01HL041786 (U.S. NIH Grant/Contract)

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

IPD Plan Description

Not required when trial was performed in 1988-92

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Heart Diseases

Clinical Trials on cardiopulmonary bypass

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

CROs by country

CROs in Philippines

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

3
Subscribe