Trial reportBrazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery
Comparison of the Efficacy of Oral versus Intravascular Magnesium in the Prevention of Hypomagnesemia and Arrhythmia after CABG.
Trial report in Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of magnesium alone or in combination with diltiazem and/or amiodarone in prevention of atrial fibrillation following off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting.Annals of cardiac anaesthesiaTrial
- Ionized or Total Magnesium levels, what should we measure in critical ill patients?Translational medicine @ UniSa · 2020Article
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
objectiveCardiac arrhythmias are a common challenge following open-heart surgeries. Hypomagnesemia is believed to be correlated with this condition. Prophylactic intravenous magnesium supplementation has been practiced for a long time in patients undergoing CABG. This study was designed in an attempt to compare the efficacy of oral versus intravenous routes in the prevention of hypomagnesemia and arrhythmia.
methodsIn this interventional clinical study, 82 patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups. All patients were evaluated for baseline serum magnesium level and arrhythmias. One group received 1,600 mg of oral magnesium hydroxide through nasogastric (NG) tube prior to surgery, while the other group received 2 g of magnesium sulfate during the induction of anesthesia. The serum magnesium level was monitored for 48 hours after the operation. The difference in preoperative hypomagnesemia was non-significant (Sig: 0.576).
resultsDuring the operation, the serum magnesium level peaked around 4 mg/dL, and no hypomagnesemia was detected in any patient. Although the curve of oral group declined parallel and below that of intravenous (IV) group, no significant differences were detected during postoperative monitoring. In addition, a prevalence of arrhythmia of 13.9% and 6.5% was noticed in IV and oral groups, respectively (OR: 0.428).
conclusionProviding 1,600 mg of oral magnesium supplement to patients is as effective as 2,000 mg of magnesium sulfate IV in preventing hypomagnesemia and arrhythmia after CABG. Thus, the authors introduce this treatment regimen as a promising and cost-effective method.
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.