ReviewDer Anaesthesist2021
[Perioperative cardioprotection - From bench to bedside : Current experimental evidence and possible reasons for the limited translation into the clinical setting].
Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2021. 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.
- Naltrexone-Induced Cardiac Function Improvement is Associated With an Attenuated Inflammatory Response and Lipid Perioxidation in Volume Overloaded Rats.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Pharmacological Conditioning of the Heart: An Update on Experimental Developments and Clinical Implications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPerioperative cardioprotection aims to minimize the consequences of myocardial ischemia reperfusion injury. These strategies appear particularly relevant for anesthesia provision during on-pump cardiac surgery but they potentially affect any cause of perioperative myocardial ischemia. In recent years, several pharmacological and nonpharmacological strategies of cardioprotection have been explored. Results from studies in isolated tissue and animal experiments are promising; however, translation of myocardial conditioning strategies to the clinical setting has been disappointing: in large trials cardioprotective interventions failed to significantly improve outcome.
objectiveThis review aims to provide an overview of the current experimental evidence regarding pharmacological and nonpharmacological cardioprotection. Moreover, it discusses reasons why translation from bench to bedside is hampered by potential confounders and suggests future approaches that might overcome these limitations. MATERIAL AND
methodsNarrative review. RESULTS AND
conclusionResults of experimental studies are convincing but translation into clinical practice remains challenging. Several confounders have been identified contributing to the mainly inconclusive results from clinical studies, such as comorbidities and comedications, choice of anesthetic regimen and also methodological issues. Carefully designed clinical trials in well-defined patient cohorts evaluating combinations of protective strategies targeting different pathways and cell types might support bench to bedside translation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.