SynthesisBrazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery2024
Comparison Between the Protective Effect of Isoflurane and Propofol on Myocardium During Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery, 2024. 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIntravenous non-volatile anaesthetics like propofol are commonly used in cardiac surgeries across several countries. Volatile anaesthetics like isoflurane may help in protecting the myocardium and minimize ischaemia-reperfusion injury. Hence, we did this review to compare the cardioprotective effect of isoflurane and propofol among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).
methodsWe conducted a search in the databases Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (or MEDLINE), Embase, PubMed Central®, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library from inception until April 2021. We carried out a meta-analysis with random-effects model and reported pooled risk ratio (RR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) depending on the type of outcome.
resultsWe analysed 13 studies including 808 participants. Almost all were low-quality studies. For cardiac index, the pooled SMD was 0.14 (95% CI: -0.22 to 0.50); for cardiac troponin I, pooled SMD was 0.10 (95% CI: -0.28 to 0.48). For mortality, the RR was 3.00 (95% CI: 0.32 to 28.43); for MI, pooled RR was 1.58 (95% CI: 0.59 to 4.20); and for inotropic drug use, pooled RR was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.90 to 1.21). For length of intensive care unit stay, the pooled SMD was 0.13 (95% CI: -0.29 to 0.55), while pooled SMD for mechanical ventilation time was -0.02 (95% CI: -0.54 to 0.51).
conclusionIsoflurane did not have significant cardioprotective effect compared to propofol following CABG. Hence, the anaesthetists need to check some viable alternatives to manage these patients and reduce the rate of postoperative complications.
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.