ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2018
Remote ischemic preconditioning in myocardial protection in hemodialysis patients.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Irisin and troponin I expression in dialysis patients submitted to remote ischemic preconditioning: a pilot study.Jornal brasileiro de nefrologia · 2020Trial
- BRD2 protects the rat H9C2 cardiomyocytes from hypoxia‑reoxygenation injury by targeting Nrf2/HO‑1 signaling pathway.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRemote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) is a procedure that generates a brief period of ischemia followed by reperfusion. The role of RIPC in protecting myocardial ischemia during hemodialysis is not yet established. The aim of the study was to evaluate RIPC myocardial protection as evaluated by ultrasensitive I troponin in hemodialysis outpatients. PATIENTS AND
methodsA double-blind randomized trial with two groups: intervention submitted to RIPC and control group without RIPC. Intervention group received RIPC in three consecutive hemodialysis sessions. Blood samples were taken before and after each session. Blood urea nitrogen for calculation of single-pool Kt/v and ultrasensitive I troponin were measured to evaluate dialysis adequacy and myocardial injury.
resultsA total of 47 patients were randomized. About 60.8% were men and 54% were diabetic. The mean single-pool Kt/v was 1.51 in the intervention group and 1.49 in control. The ultrasensitive troponin I measured no significant change from the time of collection: before or after dialysis.
conclusionThe RIPC applied in three consecutive sessions did not demonstrate superiority to control, therefore another study tested RIPC in 12 consecutive sessions with a positive result in myocardial protection. In our study, more than half of the patients were diabetic. Diabetic patients have a trend to show a lower response to RIPC because of the greater presence of collateral coronary circulation. In summary, in this model there was no interference of RIPC in ultrasensitive troponin I values, but troponin had a high negative predictive value for myocardial infarction in all tested models.
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.