Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28028069›Full record

SynthesisCardiovascular research2017

Remote ischaemic conditioning reduces infarct size in animal in vivo models of ischaemia-reperfusion injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Daniel I Bromage, Jack M J Pickard, Xavier Rossello, Oliver J Ziff, Niall Burke, Derek M Yellon, Sean M Davidson

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cardiovascular research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 10 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Guideline
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Daniel I Bromage
Jack M J Pickard
Xavier Rossello
Oliver J Ziff
Niall Burke
Derek M Yellon
Sean M Davidson

Funding

British Heart Foundation PG/15/52/31598Medical Research Council G0600986Medical Research Council G9439390Medical Research Council MR/L002043/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aims: The potential of remote ischaemic conditioning (RIC) to ameliorate myocardial ischaemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) remains controversial. We aimed to analyse the pre-clinical evidence base to ascertain the overall effect and variability of RIC in animal in vivo models of myocardial IRI. Furthermore, we aimed to investigate the impact of different study protocols on the protective utility of RIC in animal models and identify gaps in our understanding of this promising therapeutic strategy. Methods and results: Our primary outcome measure was the difference in mean infarct size between RIC and control groups in in vivo models of myocardial IRI. A systematic review returned 31 reports, from which we made 22 controlled comparisons of remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPreC) and 21 of remote ischaemic perconditioning and postconditioning (RIPerC/RIPostC) in a pooled random-effects meta-analysis. In total, our analysis includes data from 280 control animals and 373 animals subject to RIC. Overall, RIPreC reduced infarct size as a percentage of area at risk by 22.8% (95% CI 18.8-26.9%), when compared with untreated controls (P < 0.001). Similarly, RIPerC/RIPostC reduced infarct size by 22.2% (95% CI 17.1-25.3%; P < 0.001). Interestingly, we observed significant heterogeneity in effect size (T2 = 92.9% and I2 = 99.4%; P < 0.001) that could not be explained by any of the experimental variables analysed by meta-regression. However, few reports have systematically characterized RIC protocols, and few of the included in vivo studies satisfactorily met study quality requirements, particularly with respect to blinding and randomization. Conclusions: RIC significantly reduces infarct size in in vivo models of myocardial IRI. Heterogeneity between studies could not be explained by the experimental variables tested, but studies are limited in number and lack consistency in quality and study design. There is therefore a clear need for more well-performed in vivo studies with particular emphasis on detailed characterization of RIC protocols and investigating the potential impact of gender. Finally, more studies investigating the potential benefit of RIC in larger species are required before translation to humans.

Indexed as

AnimalsDisease Models, AnimalIschemic PreconditioningMyocardial InfarctionMyocardial Reperfusion InjuryMyocardiumReproducibility of ResultsInfarct sizeIschaemiaMeta-analysisPreconditioningReperfusion

Identifiers

PMID28028069
PMCPMC5408955

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.