OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether remote ischemic preconditioning can protect kidney function in children undergoing operation for complex congenital heart disease. METHODS:Children (n = 113) aged 0 to 15 years admitted for complex congenital heart disease were randomly allocated according to age to remote ischemic preconditioning and control groups. After exclusion of 8 patients, we conducted the analysis on 105 patients (remote ischemic preconditioning group, n = 54; control group, n = 51). Before surgery, remote ischemic preconditioning was performed as 4 cycles of 5 minutes of ischemia by inflating a cuff around a leg to 40 mm Hg above the systolic pressure. End points were development of acute kidney injury, initiation of dialysis, plasma creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate, plasma cystatin C, plasma and urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, and urinary output. Secondary end points included postoperative blood pressure, inotropic score, and mortality, as well as morbidity reflected by reoperation and stays in the intensive care unit and hospital. RESULTS: Overall, 57 of the children (54%) had acute kidney injury develop, with 27 (50%) in the remote ischemic preconditioning group and 30 (59%) in the control group (P > .2). Remote ischemic preconditioning was not associated with improvement in either any of the renal biomarkers or any of the secondary end points. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that remote ischemic preconditioning provided protection of kidney function in children undergoing operation for complex congenital heart disease. Copyright Â
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether remote ischemic preconditioning can protect kidney function in children undergoing operation for complex congenital heart disease. METHODS:Children (n = 113) aged 0 to 15 years admitted for complex congenital heart disease were randomly allocated according to age to remote ischemic preconditioning and control groups. After exclusion of 8 patients, we conducted the analysis on 105 patients (remote ischemic preconditioning group, n = 54; control group, n = 51). Before surgery, remote ischemic preconditioning was performed as 4 cycles of 5 minutes of ischemia by inflating a cuff around a leg to 40 mm Hg above the systolic pressure. End points were development of acute kidney injury, initiation of dialysis, plasma creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate, plasma cystatin C, plasma and urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, and urinary output. Secondary end points included postoperative blood pressure, inotropic score, and mortality, as well as morbidity reflected by reoperation and stays in the intensive care unit and hospital. RESULTS: Overall, 57 of the children (54%) had acute kidney injury develop, with 27 (50%) in the remote ischemic preconditioning group and 30 (59%) in the control group (P > .2). Remote ischemic preconditioning was not associated with improvement in either any of the renal biomarkers or any of the secondary end points. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that remote ischemic preconditioning provided protection of kidney function in children undergoing operation for complex congenital heart disease. Copyright Â
Authors: Kristy Hamilton; Erik M Wolfswinkel; William M Weathers; Amy S Xue; Daniel A Hatef; Shayan Izaddoost; Larry H Hollier Journal: Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr Date: 2014-02-21
Authors: Theo P Menting; Kimberley E Wever; Denise Md Ozdemir-van Brunschot; Daan Ja Van der Vliet; Maroeska M Rovers; Michiel C Warle Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-03-04
Authors: Jef Van den Eynde; Nicolas Cloet; Robin Van Lerberghe; Michel Pompeu B O Sá; Dirk Vlasselaers; Jaan Toelen; Jan Y Verbakel; Werner Budts; Marc Gewillig; Shelby Kutty; Hans Pottel; Djalila Mekahli Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2021-10 Impact factor: 10.614
Authors: Robert Kraemer; Johan Lorenzen; Mohammad Kabbani; Christian Herold; Marc Busche; Peter M Vogt; Karsten Knobloch Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2011-11-23 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Nicoline V Krogstrup; Mihai Oltean; Bo M Bibby; Gertrude J Nieuwenhuijs-Moeke; Frank J M F Dor; Henrik Birn; Bente Jespersen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-08-20 Impact factor: 2.692