Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32861377›Full record

Trial reportIndian heart journal

Remote ischemic preconditioning for prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy - A randomized control trial.

Akshay Ashok Bafna, Hetan C Shah

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Indian heart journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05147831 (Effectiveness of Remote Ischemic Preconditioning for Prevention of Contrast Induced Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Undergoing Coronary Angiograms.), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 47% of its field
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.

NCT05147831 narecruitingnot on this map

Effectiveness of Remote Ischemic Preconditioning for Prevention of Contrast Induced Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Undergoing Coronary Angiograms.

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe University of Texas Medical Branch, GalvestonRan2021 to 2027Enrolled300ConditionsContrast-induced Acute Kidney Injury (CI-AKI) Following Coronary Angiogram (CI-AKI), Contrast-induced Nephropathy Following Coronary Angiogram (CIN)ArmsRemote Ischemic Preconditioning
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Akshay Ashok BafnaDepartment of Cardiology, Rajarshee Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj Government Medical College and CPR Hospital, Kolhapur, India. Electronic address: drbafnaakshay@gmail.com.
Hetan C ShahDepartment of Cardiology, King Edward Memorial Hospital and Seth Gordhandas Sunderdas Medical College, Mumbai, India.
King Edward Memorial Hospital and Seth G.S. Medical College · INRajarshee Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj Government Medical College and CPR Hospital Kolhapur · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a lack of sufficient data regarding the protective effects of remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) in patients at risk of developing contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN). Thus, this study was conducted to determine whether RIPC as an adjunct to standard therapy prevents CIN in high-risk patients undergoing coronary intervention.

methodsIn a single-center, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial, 162 patients who were at risk of CIN received standard hydration combined with RIPC or hydration with sham preconditioning. RIPC was accomplished by four cycles of 5 min ischemia and 5 min reperfusion of the forearm. The primary endpoint was a rise in serum creatinine (>0.5 mg/dL or >25%) from baseline to serum creatinine 48-72 h after contrast administration.

resultsOf the 162 patients, 81 were randomly allocated to receive sham preconditioning and 81 to receive RIPC. Significantly reduced serum creatinine levels were observed in patients with a Mehran moderate risk allocated to sham group compared to the RIPC group (0.070 ± 0.16 mg/dL vs. 0.107 ± 0.13 mg/dL, p = 0.001). With regards to the primary endpoint, a significantly higher change in serum creatinine from baseline to 48-72 h was observed in the sham group compared to the RIPC group (0.023 ± 0.2 μmol/L vs -0.064 ± 0.1 μmol/L, p < 0.001).

conclusionRIPC as an alternative to standard therapy, improved serum creatinine levels after contrast administration in patients at risk of CIN. However, present data indicate that RIPC might have beneficial effects in patients with a moderate or high risk of CIN.

Indexed as

Percutaneous Coronary InterventionContrast MediaCoronary AngiographyCoronary Artery DiseaseDouble-Blind MethodFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIschemic PreconditioningKidney DiseasesMaleMiddle AgedContrast MediaCoronary angiographyNephropathyPercutaneous coronary intervention

Identifiers

PMID32861377
PMCPMC7474124
OpenAlexW3029091084

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.