| Literature DB >> 35379277 |
Hu Zhenyu1, Yuan Qiaoli1, Chen Guangxiang2, Wang Maohua3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of urinary trypsin inhibitor (UTI) or Ulinastatin on postoperative course and clinical outcomes in patients with cardiopulmonary bypass.Entities:
Keywords: Acute inflammatory disorder; Cardiopulmonary bypass; Clinical outcome; ICU length of stay; Prognosis; Ulinastatin
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35379277 PMCID: PMC8979706 DOI: 10.1186/s13019-022-01811-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiothorac Surg ISSN: 1749-8090 Impact factor: 1.637
Fig. 1Meta-analysis flowchart for selecting eligible studies
Characteristics of the clinical trials included in the meta-analysis
| Reference, years, country of origin | Number of patients | Mean age | Gender (F/M) | Surgery | Interventions | CPB time (min) | Adverse effects | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UTI group | Control group | UTI group | Control group | UTI group | Control group | UTI group | Control group | UTI group | Control group | ||||
| Zhang et al. 2020 China | 142 | 141 | 49.0 ± 14.3 | 50.3 ± 12.4 | 63/79 | 71/70 | Open heart surgery | 1,000,000 U iv, the half after anesthesia induction and the rest prime into CPB | Equivalent normal saline | 102.87 ± 42.7 | 98.69 ± 47.76 | No | |
| Xu et al. 2017 China | 20 | 20 | 53.4 ± 5.2 | 53.2 ± 5.1 | 12/8 | 13/7 | Open heart surgery | 5000 U/kg iv before CPB and at 1–3 days postoperatively | Equivalent normal saline | Unclear | No | ||
| Wang et al. 2016 China | 36 | 30 | 48.4 ± 11.3 | 49.3 ± 11.7 | 32/4 | 26/4 | AAR | 300,000 U/8 h iv before 3 days postoperatively and 300,000 U/2 h during surgery | NR | 228.6 ± 69.1 | 22.4 ± 62.5 | No | |
| Pang et al. 2015 China | 30 | 30 | 53.5 ± 9.8 | 50.2 ± 9.1 | 15/15 | 21/9 | Open heart surgery | 5000 U/Kg iv after anesthesia induction | Equivalent normal Saline | 215.3 ± 57.9 | 221.6 ± 76.1 | No | |
| Xu et al. 2013 China | 18 | 18 | 54.8 ± 8.9 | 53.2 ± 7.3 | 16/2 | 15/3 | AAR | 20,000 U/Kg iv after anesthesia induction | Equivalent placebo | 235.5 ± 25.9 | 247.2 ± 20.3 | No | |
| Hao et al. 2013 China | 20 | 20 | 56.36 ± 10.81 | 54.27 ± 10.90 | 22/18 | MVR, DVR, AVR | 1000 U/Kg iv during the preoperative period | NR | 98.36 ± 9.87 | 105.55 ± 44.16 | No | ||
| Chen et al. 2012 China | 30 | 30 | 49.8 ± 10.8 | 50.4 ± 10.0 | 14/16 | 12/18 | VR | 12,000 U/Kg iv after anesthesia induction | Equivalent normal Saline | 102.5 ± 20.7 | 105.9 ± 20.2 | No | |
| Oh et al. 2012 Korea | 30 | 30 | 67 ± 19 | 60 ± 12 | 20/10 | 16/14 | AVR | 1,000,000 U iv during surgery | Equivalent normal Saline | 99 ± 25 | 96 ± 22 | No | |
| ONG et al. 2011 Korea | 24 | 24 | 51.9 ± 17.3 | 52.7 ± 18.9 | 8/16 | 9/15 | Aortic valve repair | 5000 U/Kg iv before CPB | Equivalent normal Saline | 164.3 ± 31.5 | 173.4 ± 28.4 | No | |
| Zhou et al. 2010 China | 20 | 20 | 61.1 ± 8.7 | 28/12 | CABG | 15,000 U/Kg iv during surgery | Equivalent normal Saline | 83.5 ± 23.1 | 79.6 ± 25.7 | No | |||
| Jiang et al. 2007 China | 15 | 15 | 57.4 ± 6.6 | 56.8 ± 6.1 | 11/9 | 11/9 | CABG | 1,000,000 U iv during surgery | Equivalent placebo | 108 ± 29 | 117 ± 34 | No | |
| Nakanishi et al. 2006 Japan | 14 | 14 | 62 ± 9 | 61 ± 10 | 12/2 | 11/3 | CABG | 5000 U/Kg iv before aortic cannulation for CBP | Equivalent normal Saline | 150 ± 37 | 135 ± 39 | No | |
CBP = Cardiopulmonary Bypass; TAR = Total aortic arch replacement; AAR = Aortic Arch Replacement; VR = Valve Replacement, including Aortic Valve Replacement, Mitral Valve Replacement; MVR = Mitral Valve Replacement; DVR = Double (aortic and mitral) Valve Replacement; AVR = Aortic Valve Replacement; CABG = Coronary Artery Bypass Graft
Fig. 2Risk of bias of included studies
Fig. 3Risk of bias summary
Fig. 4Forest plots of ICU LOS in the control groups and UTI groups. CI = confidence interval; IV = inverse variance; Std = standardized mean difference
Fig. 5Meta-regression analysis of effects on ICU LOS by dosages of UTI
Fig. 6Forest plot for MVD in the control groups and UTI groups
Fig. 7Forest plot for hospital LOS in the control groups and UTI groups
Fig. 8Forest plot for RFI in the control groups and UTI groups
Fig. 9Forest plot for all-cause mortality rate in the control groups and UTI groups
Fig. 10The Begg’s test and Egger’s test for ICU LOS. Begg’s test: rank correlation test; Egger’s test: linear regression method; SMD: standardized mean difference; 95% CI confidence interval
Fig. 11The form of sensitivity analysis