Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31430831›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of pharmacology2020

Co-morbidities and co-medications as confounders of cardioprotection-Does it matter in the clinical setting?

Petra Kleinbongard, Hans Erik Bøtker, Michel Ovize, Derek J Hausenloy, Gerd Heusch

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British journal of pharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 85 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
85citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

85 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 126 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

25 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 4 institutions in 6 countries.

Petra KleinbongardInstitute for Pathophysiology, West German Heart and Vascular Center, University of Essen Medical School, Essen, Germany.
Hans Erik BøtkerDepartment of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital Skejby, Aarhus, Denmark.
Michel OvizeINSERM U1060, CarMeN Laboratory, Université de Lyon and Explorations Fonctionnelles Cardiovasculaires, Hôpital Louis Pradel, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.
Derek J HausenloyCardiovascular and Metabolic Disorders Program, Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore.
Gerd HeuschInstitute for Pathophysiology, West German Heart and Vascular Center, University of Essen Medical School, Essen, Germany.
West German Heart and Vascular Center Essen · DEAarhus University Hospital · DKLaboratoire CarMeN · FRNational Heart Centre Singapore · SG

Funding

British Heart Foundation CS/14/3/31002Danish Council for Strategic Research 11-108354Duke-National University Singapore Medical SchoolDuke-National University Singapore Medical School, Singapore Ministry of Health's National Medical Research Council under its Clinician Scientist-Senior Investigator scheme NMRC/CSA-SI/0011/2017Duke-National University Singapore Medical School, Singapore Ministry of Health's National Medical Research Council under its Collaborative Centre Grant scheme NMRC/CGAug16C006German Research Foundation SFB 1116 B08Medical Research Council MC_G1002673National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre CS/14/3/31002Novo Nordisk Foundation NNF14OC0013337Novo Nordisk Foundation NNF15OC0016674OPeRa ANR-10-IBHU-0004 OPeRaRHU MARVELOUS ANR-16-RHUS-0009RHU MARVELOUS ANR-16- RHUS-0009Singapore Ministry of Education Academic Research Fund Tier 2 MOE2016-T2-2-021Singapore Ministry of Health's National Medical Research Council NMRC/CGAug16C006Singapore Ministry of Health's National Medical Research Council NMRC/CSA-SI/0011/2017TrygFonden 109624
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The translation of cardioprotection from robust experimental evidence to beneficial clinical outcome for patients suffering acute myocardial infarction or undergoing cardiovascular surgery has been largely disappointing. The present review attempts to critically analyse the evidence for confounders of cardioprotection in patients with acute myocardial infarction and in patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery. One reason that has been proposed to be responsible for such lack of translation is the confounding of cardioprotection by co-morbidities and co-medications. Whereas there is solid experimental evidence for such confounding of cardioprotection by single co-morbidities and co-medications, the clinical evidence from retrospective analyses of the limited number of clinical data is less robust. The best evidence for interference of co-medications is that for platelet inhibitors to recruit cardioprotection per se and thus limit the potential for further protection from myocardial infarction and for propofol anaesthesia to negate the protection from remote ischaemic conditioning in cardiovascular surgery. LINKED ARTICLES: This article is part of a themed issue on Risk factors, comorbidities, and comedications in cardioprotection. To view the other articles in this section visit http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.v177.23/issuetoc.

Indexed as

Myocardial InfarctionHumansMorbidityRetrospective StudiesRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID31430831
PMCPMC7680006
OpenAlexW2969389328

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.