Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18597062›Full record

ReviewDer Anaesthesist2008

[Perioperative pharmacological myocardial protection. Systematic literature-based process optimization].

M Petzoldt, J Kähler, A E Goetz, P Friederich

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 42% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Aspirin Before Elective Surgery-Stop or Continue?Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2017
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

M PetzoldtZentrum für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Universitätskrankenhaus Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Deutschland. m.petzoldt@uke.uni-hamburg.de
J Kähler
A E Goetz
P Friederich
Universität Hamburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients with major cardiac risk factors have been suggested to benefit from perioperative beta-blockade. However, the scientific literature on perioperative beta-blockade needs to be interpreted carefully. So far treatment recommendations for millions of patients are based on heterogeneous data from randomized trials with divergent study results. The evidence for a beneficial effect of perioperative beta-blockers is sufficient only for a limited subpopulation of high cardiac risk patients undergoing vascular surgery. Perioperative beta-blocker treatment is not useful in patients with intermediate risk and may even be harmful in patients with low cardiac risk. Therefore, an individualized risk-benefit analysis is an important prerequisite for a rational therapy that may be based on a standardized protocol including the Revised Cardiac Risk Index. Such a protocol is presented in this article. A recently reported trial (POISE) demonstrated that perioperative treatment with high doses of oral metoprolol efficiently reduces the incidence of cardiovascular events. However, due to severe adverse effects (hypotension, bradycardia, stroke) the total mortality was increased. Thus, dose adjustments, safety aspects, and monitoring of beta-blocker therapy seem to be mandatory. So far evidence from relevant trials about how to best implement perioperative beta-blockade is lacking. This article offers a simple clinical concept for this purpose.

Indexed as

Perioperative CareAdrenergic beta-AntagonistsCardiomyopathiesCardiotonic AgentsContraindicationsGuidelines as TopicHeart DiseasesHumansRisk AssessmentAdrenergic beta-AntagonistsCardiotonic Agents

Identifiers

PMID18597062
OpenAlexW91872696

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.