Philip W Stather1, Julie Wych2, Jonathan R Boyle3. 1. Department of Vascular Surgery, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Electronic address: philstather@doctors.org.uk. 2. Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 3. Department of Vascular Surgery, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) is a method of preparing the body for a later prolonged ischemic episode to protect against subsequent detrimental effects. This study aimed to identify the effects of RIPC in vascular surgery. METHODS: A standard Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses search was conducted of randomized controlled trials of RIPC in patients undergoing open or endovascular aneurysm repair, carotid endarterectomy, or lower limb bypass reporting on mortality and renal or cardiac outcomes. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 (The Nordic Cochrane Center, Copenhagen, Denmark). RESULTS: A total of 13 randomized controlled trials in the meta-analysis included 548 patients in the RIPC cohort and 549 controls. There was no significant difference in mortality, renal dysfunction, myocardial infarction, myocardial injury, or length of stay between the groups, with subgroup and sensitivity analysis showing no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence demonstrates no benefit of RIPC in vascular surgery. Further large multicenter trials of RIPC in major vascular surgery should be considered.
BACKGROUND: Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) is a method of preparing the body for a later prolonged ischemic episode to protect against subsequent detrimental effects. This study aimed to identify the effects of RIPC in vascular surgery. METHODS: A standard Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses search was conducted of randomized controlled trials of RIPC in patients undergoing open or endovascular aneurysm repair, carotid endarterectomy, or lower limb bypass reporting on mortality and renal or cardiac outcomes. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 (The Nordic Cochrane Center, Copenhagen, Denmark). RESULTS: A total of 13 randomized controlled trials in the meta-analysis included 548 patients in the RIPC cohort and 549 controls. There was no significant difference in mortality, renal dysfunction, myocardial infarction, myocardial injury, or length of stay between the groups, with subgroup and sensitivity analysis showing no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence demonstrates no benefit of RIPC in vascular surgery. Further large multicenter trials of RIPC in major vascular surgery should be considered.
Authors: Teele Kasepalu; Karl Kuusik; Urmas Lepner; Joel Starkopf; Mihkel Zilmer; Jaan Eha; Mare Vähi; Jaak Kals Journal: Nutr Metab (Lond) Date: 2020-09-18 Impact factor: 4.169
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: Alexander Geragotellis; Kofi Cox; Ho Cheung Anthony Yip; Matti Jubouri; Ian M Williams; Damian M Bailey; Mohamad Bashir Journal: Cardiovasc Diagn Ther Date: 2022-08