Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33188438›Full record

ArticleBasic research in cardiology2020

The importance of clinically relevant background therapy in cardioprotective studies.

Zhenhe He, Sean M Davidson, Derek M Yellon

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Basic research in cardiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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.

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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Remote ischemic conditioning for stroke: A critical systematic review.International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. A fresh look at coronary microembolization.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2022
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zhenhe HeThe Hatter Cardiovascular Institute, University College London, 67 Chenies Mews, London, WC1E 6HX, UK.
Sean M DavidsonThe Hatter Cardiovascular Institute, University College London, 67 Chenies Mews, London, WC1E 6HX, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5182-4980
Derek M YellonThe Hatter Cardiovascular Institute, University College London, 67 Chenies Mews, London, WC1E 6HX, UK. d.yellon@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7791-9320
University College London · GB

Funding

British Heart Foundation PG/18/44/33790National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre BRC233/CM/SD/101320
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Treatment of acute myocardial infarct patients (AMI) includes rapid restoration of coronary blood flow and pharmacological therapy aimed to prevent pain and maintain vessel patency. Many interventions have been investigated to offer additional protection. One such intervention is remote ischaemic conditioning (RIC) involving short-episodes of ischaemia of the arm with a blood pressure cuff, followed by reperfusion to protect the heart organs from subsequent severe ischaemia. However, the recent CONDI2-ERIC-PPCI multicentre study of RIC in STEMI showed no benefit in clinical outcome in low risk patients. It could also be argued that these patients were already in a partially protected state, highlighting the disconnect between animal- and clinical-based outcome studies. To improve potential translatability, we developed an animal model using pharmacological agents similar to those given to patients presenting with an AMI, prior to PPCI. Rats underwent MI on a combined background of an opioid agonist, heparin and a platelet-inhibitor thereby allowing us to assess whether additional cardioprotective strategies had any effect over and above this "cocktail". We demonstrated that the "background drugs" were protective in their own right, reducing MI from 57.5 ± 3.7% to 37.3 ± 2.9% (n = 11, p < 0.001). On this background of drugs, RIC did not add any further protection (38.0 ± 3.4%). However, using a caspase inhibitor, which acts via a different mechanistic pathway to RIC, we were able to demonstrate additional protection (20.6 ± 3.3%). This concept provides initial evidence to develop models which can be used to evaluate future animal-to-clinical translation in cardioprotective studies.

Indexed as

Ischemic Preconditioning, MyocardialAnalgesics, OpioidAnimalsAnticoagulantsCaspase InhibitorsCoronary CirculationDisease Models, AnimalExtremitiesMaleMyocardial InfarctionMyocardiumPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsRats, Sprague-DawleyRegional Blood FlowTissue SurvivalTranslational Research, BiomedicalAnalgesics, OpioidAnticoagulantsCaspase InhibitorsPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsCardioprotectionEmricasanIschaemiaMulti-targetRatsRemote conditioningReperfusion

Identifiers

PMID33188438
PMCPMC7666584
OpenAlexW3105873191

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.