ArticleThe Eurasian journal of medicine2023
Myocardial Protection in Cardiac Surgery: Exploring the Influence of Anesthetic Agents.
Article in The Eurasian journal of medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Volatile Anesthesia in Contemporary Cardiac Surgery: Clinical Implications, Organ Protection and Perspectives for Personalized Perioperative Care.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Identification of mitochondria-related genes associated with anesthetics in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review assesses the efficacy of inhalation anesthetics and propofol in cardiac surgery, primarily focusing on their impact on myocardial protection and subsequent clinical outcomes. The review provides a concise summary of the current scientific information regarding the protective efects of inhalation anesthetics and propofol, particularly in the context of ischemia-reperfusion injury during cardiac surgery. The review delves into the mechanisms of action and discusses clinical studies comparing the 2 anesthetic strategies regarding mortality, complication rates, and length of hospital stay. Inhalation anesthetics exhibit cardioprotective properties through many mechanisms, such as preconditioning, scavenging of free radicals, and stabilizing mitochondria. Propofol demonstrates certain protective benefits but does not possess the preconditioning capability of inhalation medications. Clinical investigations yield contradictory findings, as several studies indicate enhanced outcomes with inhalation anesthetics, while others observe no substantial disparity between the 2 approaches. The cardioprotective efcacy of propofol against ischemia-reperfusion injury remains limited. While its inherent antioxidant properties ofer direct myocardial protection, propofol demonstrably lacks the preconditioning-mediated signaling pathways triggered by inhalation anesthetics. As a result, propofol's protective efect may be slightly inferior to preconditioning strategies, and its potential to inhibit organ-protective impact of other interventions needs further investigation. The question of which anesthetic approach ofers superior myocardial protection remains debatable. Current evidence is inconclusive, potentially due to patient heterogeneity, surgical complexity, and methodological limitations of existing studies. Future research, including pharmacogenetic studies and large, welldesigned, randomized controlled trials, are necessary to provide definitive guidance on anesthetic selection for optimal myocardial protection in cardiac surgery.
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.