Trial reportHerz2020
Loop isolation-based uploading preconditioning to protect heart from damage: a proof-of-concept study.
Trial report in Herz, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLittle is known on the role of indirect clamp releasing in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Loop isolation-based uploading preconditioning (LiuPhD) was modified to protect the heart from damage and the question of whether this can attenuate reperfusion injury after global myocardial ischemia was examined.
methodsA post-hoc comparative analysis was conducted of a prospective single-arm trial on the use of the LiuPhD strategy for 60 multivessel-disease patients undergoing isolated first-time elective on-pump CABG versus 1:1 propensity score-matched patients from the historical database of the same center.
resultsA total of 120 matched patients had a median age of 62.0 (interquartile range [IQR] 55.8-69.0) years, 27 (22.5%) women, 35 (29.2%) with left main disease, and median follow-up of 18.5 (10.9-35.4) months. The LiuPhD group had shorter post-bypass times than conventional controls (10 [6-13] vs 14 [10-19] mins; p = 0.003). The LiuPhD group had similar needs in terms of composite cardiac-specific interventions (38/60 vs 44/60; p = 0.29). At follow-up of safety, the risk for composite major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events was similar between groups (event-free survival: 82.3% vs 73.8%; hazard ratio 1.00 [0.39, 2.54], p log-rank test = 0.99).
conclusionThe LiuPhD strategy is associated with short post-bypass times, comparable risk of myocardial injury, and similar safety compared with conventional direct clamp releasing.
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.