Does magnesium-supplemented cardioplegia reduce cardiac injury? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Duan L, Zhang CF, Luo WJ, Gao Y, Chen R, Hu GH
Journal of cardiac surgery · 8 citas
Cómo se estudió
- Diseño
- Metaanálisis (indexado por PubMed)
- Estudiado en
- Personas
- Resultado principal
- Eventos clínicos como enfermedad o muerte
Quién lo pagó
- Financiación
- Financiación independiente
- Gobierno
- Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province
- Gobierno
- Hunan Sci-Tech Project
- Gobierno
- Hunan Provincial Natural Science Foundation
- Subvenciones
- Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province (13JJ3016)
Según 3 financiadores declarados.
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2015-02-04 · J Card Surg · vol. 30 · número 4 · págs. 338–345
- Editorial
- Wiley
- Citado
- 14 citas · más que el 41% de estudios similares · 0.3× el promedio de su campo
- Referencias
- 35 trabajos
- Acceso
- De pago
- Áreas de investigación
- Cardiac Ischemia and Reperfusion · Cardiac Arrest and Resuscitation · Cardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
- Palabras clave
- Medicine, Randomized controlled trial, Cardiac surgery, Myocardial infarction, Inotrope, Cardiopulmonary bypass, Cochrane Library, Anesthesia, Placebo, Magnesium, Atrial fibrillation, Incidence (geometry), Cardiology, Internal medicine
- MeSH
- humans, atrial fibrillation, cardiac output, low, myocardial infarction, postoperative complications, magnesium, cardioplegic solutions, cardiotonic agents, length of stay, cardiopulmonary bypass, incidence, hospital mortality, databases, bibliographic, randomized controlled trials as topic
6 autores
- Lian Duan🇨🇳Central South University; Xiangya Hospital Central South University
- Chunfang Zhang🇨🇳Central South University; Xiangya Hospital Central South University
- Wanjun Luo🇨🇳Central South University; Xiangya Hospital Central South University
- Yang Gao🇨🇳Central South University; Xiangya Hospital Central South University
- Ri Chen🇨🇳Central South University; Xiangya Hospital Central South University
- Guo‐Huang Hu🇨🇳 · autor de correspondenciaHunan Normal University; Fourth Hospital of Changsha
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
Background
Magnesium is often used to supplement cardioplegic solutions during cardiopulmonary bypass due to its cardioprotective effect during ischemia and reperfusion. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of magnesium-supplemented cardioplegia versus an inactive (placebo) control cardioplegia on reducing cardiac injury after cardiac arrest surgery, as found by randomized, controlled trials.
Methods
The Medline, Cochrane Library, and Chinese literature databases (CJFD, CBM, CSJD, Wanfang) were comprehensively searched for reports of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating magnesium-supplemented cardioplegic solutions. The clinical parameters and outcomes of interest were the incidence of postoperative low cardiac output, auto-rebeating rate, ICU stay length, new onset postoperative atrial fibrillation, peak value of CK-MB (and/or cTnI), incidence of myocardial infarction, and in-hospital mortality.
Results
Ten trials, with a total of 1214 patients, were included. The frequency of low cardiac output, inotropic utilization, and myocardial infarction, as well as auto-rebeating rate, length of ICU stay and in-hospital mortality, were similar between the two groups. There was a marginal reduction in the incidence of new-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation in the magnesium-supplemented cardioplegia group.
Conclusions
The advantage of magnesium-supplemented cardioplegia, compared with cardioplegia without magnesium, remains unconvincing based on the current evidence. The decision to add magnesium to the cardioplegic solution to a patient undergoing cardiac arrest surgery should be carefully considered.
Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial.
Confianza de la comunidad
Cargando…
¿Cuánto confías en los hallazgos de este estudio?
Comentarios
¿Algo está mal aquí?
Señala este estudio si su información, etiquetas o financiación parecen incorrectas. Un editor revisa cada señalamiento.
Información educativa sobre investigación publicada. No es consejo médico ni una recomendación para empezar o dejar nada.