Giacomo Deferrari1,2, Alice Bonanni1,3, Maurizio Bruschi3, Cristiano Alicino4, Alessio Signori4. 1. Department of Cardionephrology, Istituto Clinico Di Alta Specialità (ICLAS), Rapallo (GE), Italy. 2. Department of Internal Medicine (Di.MI), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy. 3. Division of Nephrology, Dialysis and Transplantation and Laboratory on Pathophysiology of Uremia, IRCCS Istituto Giannina Gaslini, Genoa, Italy. 4. Department of Health Science (Di.S.Sal), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy.
Abstract
Background: The main aim of this systematic review was to assess whether remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) protects kidneys and the heart in cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and to investigate a possible role of anaesthetic agents. Methods: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the effects of RIPC through limb ischaemia in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB were searched (1965-October 2016) in PubMed, Cochrane Library and article reference lists. A random effects model on standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes and the Peto odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous outcomes were used to meta-analyse data. Subgroup analyses to evaluate the effects of different anaesthetic regimens were pre-planned. Results: Thirty-three RCTs (5999 participants) were included. In the whole group, RIPC did not significantly reduce the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI), acute myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, mortality or length of intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays. On the contrary, RIPC significantly reduced the area under the curve for myocardial injury biomarkers (MIBs) {SMD -0.37 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.53 to - 0.21]} and the composite endpoint incidence [OR 0.85 (95% CI 0.74-0.97)]. In the volatile anaesthetic group, RIPC significantly reduced AKI incidence [OR 0.57 (95% CI 0.41-0.79)] and marginally reduced ICU stay. Conversely, except for MIBs, RIPC had fewer non-significant effects under propofol with or without volatile anaesthetics. Conclusions: RIPC did not consistently reduce morbidity and mortality in adults undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB. In the subgroup on volatile anaesthetics only, RIPC markedly and significantly reduced the incidence of AKI and composite endpoint as well as myocardial injury.
Background: The main aim of this systematic review was to assess whether remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) protects kidneys and the heart in cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and to investigate a possible role of anaesthetic agents. Methods: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the effects of RIPC through limb ischaemia in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB were searched (1965-October 2016) in PubMed, Cochrane Library and article reference lists. A random effects model on standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes and the Peto odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous outcomes were used to meta-analyse data. Subgroup analyses to evaluate the effects of different anaesthetic regimens were pre-planned. Results: Thirty-three RCTs (5999 participants) were included. In the whole group, RIPC did not significantly reduce the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI), acute myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, mortality or length of intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays. On the contrary, RIPC significantly reduced the area under the curve for myocardial injury biomarkers (MIBs) {SMD -0.37 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.53 to - 0.21]} and the composite endpoint incidence [OR 0.85 (95% CI 0.74-0.97)]. In the volatile anaesthetic group, RIPC significantly reduced AKI incidence [OR 0.57 (95% CI 0.41-0.79)] and marginally reduced ICU stay. Conversely, except for MIBs, RIPC had fewer non-significant effects under propofol with or without volatile anaesthetics. Conclusions: RIPC did not consistently reduce morbidity and mortality in adults undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB. In the subgroup on volatile anaesthetics only, RIPC markedly and significantly reduced the incidence of AKI and composite endpoint as well as myocardial injury.
Authors: Gal Yaniv; Arik Eisenkraft; Lilach Gavish; Linn Wagnert-Avraham; Dean Nachman; Jacob Megreli; Gil Shimon; Daniel Rimbrot; Ben Simon; Asaf Berman; Matan Cohen; David Kushnir; Ruth Shaylor; Baruch Batzofin; Shimon Firman; Amir Shlaifer; Michael Hartal; Yuval Heled; Elon Glassberg; Yitshak Kreiss; S David Gertz Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-05-24 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Tania C Spada; José M R D Silva; Lucila S Francisco; Lia J Marçal; Leila Antonangelo; Dirce M T Zanetta; Luis Yu; Emmanuel A Burdmann Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-11-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sarah Ekeloef; Morten Homilius; Maiken Stilling; Peter Ekeloef; Seda Koyuncu; Anna-Marie Bloch Münster; Christian S Meyhoff; Ossian Gundel; Julie Holst-Knudsen; Ole Mathiesen; Ismail Gögenur Journal: BMJ Date: 2019-12-04
Authors: Aikaterini Papadopoulou; Matthew Dickinson; Theophilus L Samuels; Christian Heiss; Julie Hunt; Lui Forni; Ben C Creagh-Brown Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Andrew D Shaw; Nicole R Guinn; Jessica K Brown; Rakesh C Arora; Kevin W Lobdell; Michael C Grant; Tong J Gan; Daniel T Engelman Journal: Perioper Med (Lond) Date: 2022-04-28
Authors: Karla Johanna Ruth Hoyer-Allo; Martin Richard Späth; Ruth Hanssen; Marc Johnsen; Susanne Brodesser; Kathrin Kaufmann; Katharina Kiefer; Felix Carlo Koehler; Heike Göbel; Torsten Kubacki; Franziska Grundmann; Bernhard Schermer; Jens Brüning; Thomas Benzing; Volker Burst; Roman-Ulrich Müller Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-05-22 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Martin Richard Späth; Felix Carlo Koehler; Karla Johanna Ruth Hoyer-Allo; Franziska Grundmann; Volker Burst; Roman-Ulrich Müller Journal: F1000Res Date: 2020-04-03