OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cardioprotective efficacy of remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) in cardiac surgery. DESIGN: We have performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled trials involving RIPC. SETTING: Randomized controlled trials of RIPC in open cardiac surgery patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Meta-analysis was performed with the primary outcome the standardized mean difference between intervention and control groups in 12 hour postoperative troponin concentration. Heterogeneity was examined by fixed effects meta-regression. RESULTS: Ten studies with a total of 693 participants were included in the meta-analysis. RIPC reduced troponin levels 12 hours after surgery compared with control. The fixed and random effects differences were 0.35 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.51) and 0.53 (95% CI 0.18-0.88) respectively. However, important heterogeneity was present. Fixed effects meta-regression partially accounted for heterogeneity based on whether studies had full blinding, comprising blinding of patients, surgeons, anaesthetists and investigators. Studies with incomplete or no blinding demonstrated a larger estimate of effect, 0.74 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.00) compared to those with full blinding, 0.13 (95% CI - 0.07 to 0.33). CONCLUSIONS: Although our analysis suggests RIPC may result in cardiac protection during cardiac surgery, the effect was most marked in studies without full blinding, with a smaller and statistically non-significant effect in fully blinded studies. We propose that further double blind randomized controlled trials investigating the cardioprotective effects of RIPC in cardiac surgery are required to resolve the current clinical uncertainty.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cardioprotective efficacy of remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) in cardiac surgery. DESIGN: We have performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled trials involving RIPC. SETTING: Randomized controlled trials of RIPC in open cardiac surgery patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Meta-analysis was performed with the primary outcome the standardized mean difference between intervention and control groups in 12 hour postoperative troponin concentration. Heterogeneity was examined by fixed effects meta-regression. RESULTS: Ten studies with a total of 693 participants were included in the meta-analysis. RIPC reduced troponin levels 12 hours after surgery compared with control. The fixed and random effects differences were 0.35 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.51) and 0.53 (95% CI 0.18-0.88) respectively. However, important heterogeneity was present. Fixed effects meta-regression partially accounted for heterogeneity based on whether studies had full blinding, comprising blinding of patients, surgeons, anaesthetists and investigators. Studies with incomplete or no blinding demonstrated a larger estimate of effect, 0.74 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.00) compared to those with full blinding, 0.13 (95% CI - 0.07 to 0.33). CONCLUSIONS: Although our analysis suggests RIPC may result in cardiac protection during cardiac surgery, the effect was most marked in studies without full blinding, with a smaller and statistically non-significant effect in fully blinded studies. We propose that further double blind randomized controlled trials investigating the cardioprotective effects of RIPC in cardiac surgery are required to resolve the current clinical uncertainty.
Authors: Michael M H Cheung; Rajesh K Kharbanda; Igor E Konstantinov; Mikiko Shimizu; Helena Frndova; Jia Li; Helen M Holtby; Peter N Cox; Jeffrey F Smallhorn; Glen S Van Arsdell; Andrew N Redington Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-05-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Nahum Nesher; Abdullah A Alghamdi; Steve K Singh; Jeri Y Sever; George T Christakis; Bernard S Goldman; Gideon N Cohen; Fuad Moussa; Stephen E Fremes Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Stephen P Hoole; Patrick M Heck; Linda Sharples; Sadia N Khan; Rudolf Duehmke; Cameron G Densem; Sarah C Clarke; Leonard M Shapiro; Peter M Schofield; Michael O'Sullivan; David P Dutka Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-02-02 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Niteen Tapuria; Yogesh Kumar; Meer Mohammad Habib; Mahmoud Abu Amara; Alexander M Seifalian; Brian R Davidson Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2008-01-22 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Stavros P Loukogeorgakis; Rupert Williams; Anna T Panagiotidou; Shyamsunder K Kolvekar; Ann Donald; Tim J Cole; Derek M Yellon; John E Deanfield; Raymond J MacAllister Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-08-27 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: A Selcuk Adabag; Thomas Rector; Salima Mithani; John Harmala; Herbert B Ward; Rosemary F Kelly; John T Nguyen; Edward O McFalls; Hanna E Bloomfield Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Derek J Hausenloy; Peter K Mwamure; Vinod Venugopal; Joanne Harris; Matthew Barnard; Ernie Grundy; Elizabeth Ashley; Sanjeev Vichare; Carmelo Di Salvo; Shyam Kolvekar; Martin Hayward; Bruce Keogh; Raymond J MacAllister; Derek M Yellon Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-08-18 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: A Phillip Owens; Nathan Robbins; Keith Saum; Shannon M Jones; Akiva Kirschner; Jessica G Woo; Connie McCoy; Samuel Slone; Marc E Rothenberg; Elaine M Urbina; Michael Tranter; Jack Rubinstein Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2018-09-14 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Carina Benstoem; Christian Stoppe; Oliver J Liakopoulos; Julia Ney; Dirk Hasenclever; Patrick Meybohm; Andreas Goetzenich Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-05-05
Authors: Michael Goldfarb; Laura Drudi; Mohammad Almohammadi; Yves Langlois; Nicolas Noiseux; Louis Perrault; Nicolo Piazza; Jonathan Afilalo Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2015-08-17 Impact factor: 5.501