Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36267756›Full record

ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2022

Preclinical systematic review & meta-analysis of cyclosporine for the treatment of myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury.

Joshua Hefler, Braulio A Marfil-Garza, Sandra Campbell, Darren H Freed, A M James Shapiro

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Mitochondria dysfunction, a potential cytoprotection target against ischemia-reperfusion injury in a mouse stroke model.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Joshua HeflerDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Braulio A Marfil-GarzaDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Sandra CampbellJohn W. Scott Health Sciences Library, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Darren H FreedDivision of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
A M James ShapiroDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
University of Alberta · CAInstituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán · MX

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Though best known for its immunosuppressant effects, cyclosporine A (CsA) has also been studied as a treatment to mitigate ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) by its inhibition of the mitochondria permeability transition pore (mPTP). Despite numerous preclinical studies supporting its benefit in reducing infarct size following myocardial IRI, large randomized controlled clinical trials have been unable to show a beneficial effect. Exploring existing preclinical data can give us the opportunity to revisit some the assumptions that may have led to the failure of these studies to translate clinically. Herein, we present a systematic review of preclinical studies testing CsA to attenuate myocardial IRI (PROSPERO CRD42020159620). Methods: We conducted a systematic search of health research databases Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Web of Science BIOSIS, and Scopus, as well as Cochrane and PROSPERO systematic review databases, on March 9, 2022 for non-human Results: We identified 71 studies, 59 of which were studies of coronary occlusion. Overall, 75% of studies reported a clear positive effect of CsA in mitigating myocardial IRI by some clinically relevant parameter (e.g., infarct size). A meta-analysis including 43 coronary occlusion studies showed an overall reduction in infarct size with CsA treatment (16.09%; 95% CI: -18.50% to -13.67%). Subgroup meta-analyses identified species, age, timing of administration, and duration of ischemia as factors potentially affecting the efficacy of CsA in the setting of myocardial IRI. Conclusions: Our systematic review and meta-analysis identifies questions that have yet to be answered by preclinical studies, highlighting important differences between these and clinical studies that should be addressed prior to proceeding with any further clinical studies using CsA to treat IRI in the heart or other organs. We also use the example of CsA to highlight general considerations for researchers attempting to translate animal studies into the clinical setting.

Indexed as

cyclosporine A (CsA)ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI)Meta-analysispreclinical modelssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36267756
PMCPMC9577743
OpenAlexW4291340433

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.