↓ Skip to main content

Remote ischaemic preconditioning for coronary artery bypass grafting (with or without valve surgery)

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Remote ischaemic preconditioning for coronary artery bypass grafting (with or without valve surgery)
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011719.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carina Benstoem, Christian Stoppe, Oliver J Liakopoulos, Julia Ney, Dirk Hasenclever, Patrick Meybohm, Andreas Goetzenich

Abstract

Despite substantial improvements in myocardial preservation strategies, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is still associated with severe complications. It has been reported that remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) reduces reperfusion injury in people undergoing cardiac surgery and improves clinical outcome. However, there is a lack of synthesised information and a need to review the current evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). To assess the benefits and harms of remote ischaemic preconditioning in people undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, with or without valve surgery. In May 2016 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science. We also conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We also checked reference lists of included studies. We did not apply any language restrictions. We included RCTs in which people scheduled for CABG (with or without valve surgery) were randomly assigned to receive RIPC or sham intervention before surgery. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We calculated mean differences (MDs), standardised mean differences (SMDs) and risk ratios (RR) using a random-effects model. We assessed quality of the trial evidence for all primary outcomes using the GRADE methodology. We completed a 'Risk of bias' assessment for all studies and performed sensitivity analysis by excluding studies judged at high or unclear risk of bias for sequence generation, allocation concealment and incomplete outcome data. We contacted authors for missing data. Our primary endpoints were 1) composite endpoint (including all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction or any new stroke, or both) assessed at 30 days after surgery, 2) cardiac troponin T (cTnT, ng/L) at 48 hours and 72 hours, and as area under the curve (AUC) 72 hours (µg/L) after surgery, and 3) cardiac troponin I (cTnI, ng/L) at 48 hours, 72 hours, and as area under the curve (AUC) 72 hours (µg/L) after surgery. We included 29 studies involving 5392 participants (mean age = 64 years, age range 23 to 86 years, 82% male). However, few studies contributed data to meta-analyses due to inconsistency in outcome definition and reporting. In general, risk of bias varied from low to high risk of bias across included studies, and insufficient detail was provided to inform judgement in several cases. The quality of the evidence of key outcomes ranged from moderate to low quality due to the presence of moderate or high statistical heterogeneity, imprecision of results or due to limitations in the design of individual studies.Compared with no RIPC, we found that RIPC has no treatment effect on the rate of the composite endpoint with RR 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.25); 2 studies; 2463 participants; moderate-quality evidence. Participants randomised to RIPC showed an equivalent or better effect regarding the amount of cTnT release measured at 72 hours after surgery with SMD -0.32 (95% CI -0.65 to 0.00); 3 studies; 1120 participants; moderate-quality evidence; and expressed as AUC 72 hours with SMD -0.49 (95% CI -0.96 to -0.02); 3 studies; 830 participants; moderate-quality evidence. We found the same result in favour of RIPC for the cTnI release measured at 48 hours with SMD -0.21 (95% CI -0.40 to -0.02); 5 studies; 745 participants; moderate-quality evidence; and measured at 72 hours after surgery with SMD -0.37 (95% CI -0.59 to -0.15); 2 studies; 459 participants; moderate-quality evidence. All other primary outcomes showed no differences between groups (cTnT release measured at 48 hours with SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.06; 4 studies; 1792 participants; low-quality evidence and cTnI release measured as AUC 72 hours with SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.14; 2 studies; 159 participants; moderate-quality evidence).We also found no differences between groups for all-cause mortality after 30 days, non-fatal myocardial infarction after 30 days, any new stroke after 30 days, acute renal failure after 30 days, length of stay on the intensive care unit (days), any complications and adverse effects related to ischaemic preconditioning. We did not assess many patient-centred/salutogenic-focused outcomes. We found no evidence that RIPC has a treatment effect on clinical outcomes (measured as a composite endpoint including all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction or any new stroke, or both, assessed at 30 days after surgery). There is moderate-quality evidence that RIPC has no treatment effect on the rate of the composite endpoint including all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction or any new stroke assessed at 30 days after surgery, or both. We found moderate-quality evidence that RIPC reduces the cTnT release measured at 72 hours after surgery and expressed as AUC (72 hours). There is moderate-quality evidence that RIPC reduces the amount of cTnI release measured at 48 hours, and measured 72 hours after surgery. Adequately-designed studies, especially focusing on influencing factors, e.g. with regard to anaesthetic management, are encouraged and should systematically analyse the commonly used medications of people with cardiovascular diseases.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 129 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 23%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Researcher 10 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 28 22%
Unknown 29 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 9%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 33 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 October 2019.
All research outputs
#3,151,722
of 14,202,103 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,681
of 10,885 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,025
of 265,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#160
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,202,103 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,885 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,204 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.