Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25143742›Full record

SynthesisVascular health and risk management2014

Postconditioning in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review, critical appraisal, and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

M Abdelnoor, I Sandven, S Limalanathan, J Eritsland

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Vascular health and risk management, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
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.

M AbdelnoorCentre of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål, Norway ; Centre of Clinical Heart Research, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål, Norway.
I SandvenCentre of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål, Norway.
S LimalanathanDepartment of Cardiology, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål, Norway.
J EritslandDepartment of Cardiology, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe aimed to summarize the evidence from randomized clinical trials studies examining the efficacy of ischemic postconditioning (IPost) in ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

designThe study was a systematic review and critical appraisal, with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe searched the literature. A total of 21 randomized clinical trials were identified. Both fixed effect and random effects models were used to synthesize the results of individual studies. Heterogeneity between studies was examined by subgroup and random effects meta-regression analyses, considering ptient-related and study-level variables. Publication bias, or "small-study effect", was evaluated.

resultsSubstantial heterogeneity was present. The random effects model pooled estimate for the outcome infarct size assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance was estimated by the standardized mean difference (SMD) =-0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.34 to 0.21, ie, no effect of IPost. For the end point infarct size, estimated by biomarkers of myocardial necrosis, an overall pooled effect was SMD =-0.58, 95% CI: -0.96 to -0.19. This effect disappeared in powered and nonbiased studies (SMD =0.03, 95% CI: -0.48 to 0.55). Finally, for the outcome left ventricular ejection fraction, SMD =0.47 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.74. Unfortunately, selection bias (small-study effect) was present. For this outcome, the meta-regression showed that both presence of hypertension and the inclusion of nonbiased studies explained 28.3% of the heterogeneity among the studies. Simulation by the "trim and fill" method, which controlled for selection bias using random effects model, diluted the effect (SMD =0.17 95% CI: -0.13 to 0.48). No effects by IPost on ST-segment resolution or on the majority of adverse clinical events were observed during follow up, except the incidence of congestive heart failure was found.

conclusionEvidence from this study suggests no cardioprotection from IPost, on surrogate and the majority of clinical end points. A possible beneficial effect on the incidence of congestive heart failure needs to be replicated by a large clinical trial.

Indexed as

Heart FailureHumansIschemic PostconditioningMyocardial InfarctionMyocardiumNecrosisRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRecovery of FunctionStroke VolumeTreatment OutcomeVentricular Function, Leftacute myocardial infarctionischemic postconditioningpercutaneous coronary intervention

Identifiers

PMID25143742
PMCPMC4134024

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.