Brain and heart conditions are among the leading causes of illness and mortality in Canada. Heart failure is one of the fastest-growing cardiovascular conditions globally, with more than 100 000 Canadians diagnosed each year. Individuals with heart failure are at significantly increased risk of mental health challenges such as depression, anxiety and stress. However, healthcare services often remain siloed, treating physical and mental health separately. This complicates care for individuals with multiple chronic conditions. This multiyear study will adapt, test and accelerate changes to regional care delivery models in Eastern Ontario to optimise brain-heart health and generate knowledge to support the spread and scale of effective interventions that address community needs and priorities. We aim to: (1) identify resource gaps by mapping available services; (2) document strengths and challenges in care delivery; and (3) co-design, pilot test and evaluate an intervention developed based on the priority gap area(s) identified through objectives (1) and (2).

This community-based participatory action research study is led by a research coalition of patient and caregiver partners, care providers and leadership staff from two Ontario Health Teams. In Year 1, we will conduct asset mapping and community consultations with individuals living with heart failure, caregivers, care providers and service organisations to identify care gaps, strengths and opportunities for improvement around modifiable behavioural risk factors and brain-heart health. A scoping review will identify evidence-based strategies to address care gaps and inform the co-design of an intervention focused on supporting individuals with brain-heart interconnected conditions. In Year 2, we will co-design an intervention with community partners for implementation with clinical test sites. Year 3 will involve pilot testing the intervention and conducting outcome and process evaluations. This will inform future spread and scale of the intervention to other brain-heart conditions and new jurisdictions.

The study is approved by the Bruyère Health Research Ethics Board (M16-24-016). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and knowledge mobilisation activities such as social media, community events and local media outreach, as well as through dedicated engagement with Ontario Health partners and the Brain-Heart Interconnectome Network via retreats and collaborative forums.

Acute intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) is devastating with a 1 month mortality rate of ~40%. Cerebral oedema can complicate acute ICH and is associated with poor outcome. In patients with large ICH, the accompanying swelling increases mass effect and causes brain herniation. Mannitol, an osmotic diuretic, is used to treat cerebral oedema after traumatic brain injury, but its safety and efficacy in ICH is unclear. We aim to assess the feasibility of a phase II randomised, controlled trial of mannitol in patients with ICH with, or at risk of, cerebral oedema to inform a definitive trial.

The mannitol for cerebral oedema after acute intracerebral haemorrhage trial (MACE-ICH) aims to include 45 ICH participants from 10 UK sites with estimated largest diameter of haematoma volume >2 cm, presenting within 72 hours of onset with, or at risk of, cerebral oedema (limited Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS)8) with or without mass effect. Participants will be randomised (1:1:1) to 1 g/kg 10% single-dose intravenous mannitol, 1 g/kg 10% mannitol followed by a second dose at 24 hours, or standard care alone. Outcome assessors will be masked to treatment allocation. Feasibility outcomes include proportion of patients approached being randomised, participants receiving allocated treatment, recruitment rate, treatment adherence and follow-up. Secondary outcomes include serum electrolytes and osmolality at days 1–2; change in ICH and oedema volume at day 5; number of participants who developed urinary tract infection, GCS and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale at day 5±2; length of hospital stay, discharge destination and death up to day 28; death and death or dependency by day 180 and disability (Barthel Index), quality of life (EuroQol, 5-D) and cognition (telephone mini-mental state examination) at day 180.

MACE-ICH received ethics approval from the East Midlands-Leicester Central research ethics committee (22/EM/0242). The trial is funded by a National Institute for Health and Care Research RfPB grant (203080). The results will be published in an academic journal and disseminated through academic conferences and patient support groups. Reporting will be in line with Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials recommendations.

ISRCTN15383301; EUDRACT 2022-000283-22.

Chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI) represents a severe and debilitating condition characterised by inadequate blood supply to the extremities, leading to acute and persistent pain, ulceration and a heightened risk of limb loss. Patients with CLTI often experience chronic pain that significantly impairs their quality of life. The pain experienced by patients with CLTI can be complex and challenging to manage, requiring a refined approach to balance analgesic efficacy with potential adverse pharmacological effects and pre-existing, competing comorbidities. This systematic review protocol aims to explore, critically assess and compare the effectiveness and safety of different pharmacological and locoregional analgesic approaches for managing pain occurring secondary to CLTI.

The methods will be performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Five electronic databases will be searched. At least two reviewers will perform study screening, data extraction and quality assessments. Any disagreements will be arbitrated by an additional independent reviewer. Randomised studies, observational cohort studies and case series consisting of four or more patients will be included. Grey literature will be excluded. The primary outcome will be the effectiveness of analgesia. Secondary outcomes will include adverse effects of analgesia and functional outcomes. Where the data allow, appropriate quantitative synthesis methods will be pursued.

This systematic review will not involve primary data collection; thus, no ethical approval is required. The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed publication and presented at conferences.

CRD42024561800