ArticleJournal of cardiovascular and thoracic research2016
Effect of ischemic postconditioning on myocardial protection in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular and thoracic research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardioprotection in cardiovascular surgery.Basic research in cardiology · 2024Review
- Guanxinning Injection Combined With Ischemic Postconditioning Attenuate Myocardial Ischemic Reperfusion Injury in Chronic Renal Failure Rats by Modulating Mitochondrial Dynamics.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Application of ischemic postconditioning's algorithms in tissues protection: response to methodological gaps in preclinical and clinical studies.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionReperfusion injury is a well-known phenomenon following restoration of the coronary circulation after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) that impairs myocardial function. In order to control the severity of this injury, we aimed to investigate the effect of a new conditioning strategy namely ischemic postconditioning (IPOC) along with controlled aortic root reperfusion (CARR) on myocardial protection in CABG surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass.
methodsIn a doubled blind clinical trial study, 51 patients undergoing first-time elective CABG were randomly divided in three groups: CARR, IPOC, and combination of IPOC and CARR. At the end of procedure and just before aortic cross-clamp removal, reperfusion was started as following: In CARR-receiving groups, the reperfusion was started with low perfusion pressures for 10 minutes, and in IPOC-receiving groups, three cycles of 1 minute episodes of ischemia separated by 1 minute episodes of reperfusion was applied as postconditioning protocol. Left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) (by echocardiography), inotrope requirement index, and myocardial arrhythmias were measured up to 72 hours after operation.
resultsEchocardiography revealed that the recovery of EF after operation in IPOC group was significantly higher than those of two other groups (P < 0.05). Inotropic support requirement was significantly lower in IPOC groups. In addition, the incidence of atrial and ventricular arrhythmias after opening of aortic clamp and in intensive care unit (ICU) as well as recovery time of cardiac rhythm upon reperfusion were lowered by administration of IPOC, as compared with CARR group.
conclusionThe study suggests that IPOC may provide clinical benefits against reperfusion injury in patients undergoing CABG surgery and maintain the post ischemic left ventricular performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.