4.5 Review

The role of remote ischemic preconditioning in organ protection after cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH
卷 186, 期 1, 页码 207-216

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2013.09.006

关键词

Cardiac surgery; Coronary artery bypass surgery; Cardiopulmonary bypass; Renal failure; Congenital heart disease

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) appears to protect distant organs from ischemia-reperfusion injury. We undertook meta-analysis of clinical studies to evaluate the effects of RIPC on organ protection and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Methods: A review of evidence for cardiac, renal, and pulmonary protection after RIPC was performed. We also did meta-regressions on RIPC variables, such as duration of ischemia, cuff pressure, and timing of application of preconditioning. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital and intensive care unit stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and mortality at 30 days. Results: Randomized control trials (n = 25) were included in the study for quantitative analysis of cardiac (n = 16), renal (n = 6), and pulmonary (n = 3) protection. RIPC provided statistically significant cardiac protection (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.15, -0.39; Z = 3.98; P < 0.0001) and on subgroup analysis, the protective effect remained consistent for all types of cardiac surgical procedures. However, there was no evidence of renal protection (SMD, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53, 1.02; Z = 1.81; P = 0.07) or pulmonary protection (SMD, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.56, 0.50; Z = 0.12; P = 0.91). There was no statistical difference in the short-term clinical outcomes between the RIPC and control groups. Conclusions: RIPC provides cardiac protection, but there is no evidence of renal or pulmonary protection in patients undergoing cardiac surgery using cardiopulmonary bypass. Larger multicenter trials are required to define the role of RIPC in surgical practice. Crown Copyright (C) 2014 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据