Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25764404›Full record

ReviewAnaesthesia2015

Peri-operative anaesthetic myocardial preconditioning and protection - cellular mechanisms and clinical relevance in cardiac anaesthesia.

G Kunst, A A Klein

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Anaesthesia, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. 2024 EACTS/EACTAIC/EBCP Guidelines on cardiopulmonary bypass in adult cardiac surgery.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2025
    Article
  9. 2024 EACTS/EACTAIC/EBCP Guidelines on cardiopulmonary bypass in adult cardiac surgery.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

G KunstDepartment of Anaesthetics, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
A A Klein

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Preconditioning has been shown to reduce myocardial damage caused by ischaemia-reperfusion injury peri-operatively. Volatile anaesthetic agents have the potential to provide myocardial protection by anaesthetic preconditioning and, in addition, they also mediate renal and cerebral protection. A number of proof-of-concept trials have confirmed that the experimental evidence can be translated into clinical practice with regard to postoperative markers of myocardial injury; however, this effect has not been ubiquitous. The clinical trials published to date have also been too small to investigate clinical outcome and mortality. Data from recent meta-analyses in cardiac anaesthesia are also not conclusive regarding intra-operative volatile anaesthesia. These inconclusive clinical results have led to great variability currently in the type of anaesthetic agent used during cardiac surgery. This review summarises experimentally proposed mechanisms of anaesthetic preconditioning, and assesses randomised controlled clinical trials in cardiac anaesthesia that have been aimed at translating experimental results into the clinical setting.

Indexed as

Cardiac Surgical ProceduresAnesthetics, InhalationAnimalsHumansIschemic Preconditioning, MyocardialMyocardial Reperfusion InjuryMyocytes, CardiacPerioperative CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnesthetics, Inhalation

Identifiers

PMID25764404
PMCPMC4402000

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.