4.6 Article

Preoperative oral magnesium loading to prevent postoperative atrial fibrillation following coronary surgery: a prospective randomized controlled trial

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezac269

关键词

Postoperative atrial fibrillation; Coronary artery bypass surgery; Magnesium; Oral; Prevention

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to assess the effect of preoperative magnesium loading on the incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF) following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. The results showed that preoperative oral magnesium administration significantly reduced the risk of AF.
OBJECTIVES: Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is common following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. Hypomagnesemia is frequent after CABG surgery. No previous trials have assessed the effect of preoperative magnesium (Mg) loading on POAF incidence. METHODS: This was a single-centre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial, with balanced randomization [1:1]. The participants were recruited from November 2018 until May 2019. Patients received either 3.2 g of Mg daily (4 tablets of 0.4 g each twice daily) for 72 h preoperatively and 1.6 g of Mg (4 tablets) on the day of surgery or placebo tablets. RESULTS: The primary outcome was the incidence of POAF. Secondary outcomes included time to extubation, transfusion rate, critical care unit and hospital length of stay. Of the 210 randomized participants, 200 (100 in each group) completed the study. A total of 10 (10%) and 22 (22%) subjects developed POAF in the Mg and placebo groups, respectively (RR= 0.45, 95% confidence interval: 0.23-0.91). Hospital and critical care unit length of stay were comparable between the 2 groups. No side effects related to Mg administration were documented. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized controlled trial, preoperative loading with oral administration of Mg for 3 days in patients admitted for CABG surgery decreases the incidence of POAF compared to placebo.

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

4.6
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