Marczak Jakub, Nowicki Rafal, Kulbacka Julita, Saczko Jolanta
Department of Cardiac Surgery, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland.
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2012 May;14(5):634-9. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivr123. Epub 2012 Jan 26.
A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) is of benefit to patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Altogether, more than 264 papers were found using the reported search, 16 of which represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. We conclude that RIPC is a safe protocol which could potentially be used in cardiac surgery to provide additional cardiac protection against ischaemia reperfusion injury, although it may not be appropriate for patients on K(+) ATPase channel blockers (sulphonylureas) as they seem to eliminate the effect of RIPC. In our study, we found two meta-analyses of cardiac surgery with or without RIPC. Both unequivocally showed 0.81 and 0.74 standardized mean reduction in myocardial necrosis markers in patients receiving RIPC and cardiac or vascular surgery. No difference in perioperative myocardial infarction incidence or 30-day mortality were found. In adult cardiac surgery, we found 11 randomized control trials (RCTs) ranging in size from 45 to 162 patients. Two representative studies reported no difference in postoperative cardiac troponin I concentration in RIPC vs. controls. In one of the studies (CABG ± RIPC) no additional benefit could have been observed for RIPC regarding intra-aortic balloon pump usage (controls 8.5 vs. RIPC 7.5%), inotropic support (39 vs. 50%) or vasoconstrictor usage (66 vs. 64%). On the other hand, in the other study [CABG ± AVR (aortic valve replacement) ± RIPC] significant reduction of troponin I at 8 h postoperatively (controls, 2.90 µg/l vs. RIPC, 2.54 µg/l, P = 0.043) was shown. Marked reduction in cardiac necrosis markers was also found in several smaller RCTs concerning coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) patients receiving RIPC preoperatively: with cold crystalloid cardioplegia (44.5% reduction), with cross-clamping and fibrillation (43% reduction) and with cold blood cardioplegia (42.4% reduction). The proof of concept trials summarized here give some early evidence that RIPC may potentially provide some reduction in myocardial injury. If confirmed, in future clinical studies this technique may one day lead to a method to reduce reperfusion injury in clinical practice.
一篇心脏外科领域的最佳证据主题文章是按照结构化方案撰写的。所探讨的问题是远程缺血预处理(RIPC)对接受心脏手术的患者是否有益。通过报告的检索方式,共找到264多篇论文,其中16篇代表了回答该临床问题的最佳证据。这些论文的作者、期刊、出版日期、国家、研究的患者群体、研究类型、相关结局和结果都列成了表格。我们得出结论,RIPC是一种安全的方案,有可能用于心脏手术,为心肌缺血再灌注损伤提供额外的心脏保护,尽管对于使用钾离子ATP酶通道阻滞剂(磺脲类药物)的患者可能不合适,因为这类药物似乎会消除RIPC的效果。在我们的研究中,我们发现了两篇关于有或无RIPC的心脏手术的荟萃分析。两者均明确显示,接受RIPC的心脏或血管手术患者的心肌坏死标志物标准化平均降低幅度分别为0.81和0.74。围手术期心肌梗死发生率或30天死亡率无差异。在成人心脏手术中,我们发现了11项随机对照试验(RCT),样本量从45例到162例不等。两项代表性研究报告称,RIPC组与对照组术后心肌肌钙蛋白I浓度无差异。在其中一项研究(冠状动脉搭桥术±RIPC)中,就主动脉内球囊反搏使用情况(对照组8.5% vs. RIPC组7.5%)、血管活性药物支持(39% vs. 50%)或血管收缩剂使用情况(66% vs. 64%)而言,未观察到RIPC有额外益处。另一方面,在另一项研究[冠状动脉搭桥术±主动脉瓣置换术(AVR)±RIPC]中,术后8小时肌钙蛋白I显著降低(对照组2.90μg/L vs. RIPC组2.54μg/L,P = 0.043)。在一些关于术前接受RIPC的冠状动脉搭桥术(CABG)患者的较小规模RCT中,也发现心脏坏死标志物显著降低:采用冷晶体心脏停搏液时(降低44.5%)、采用交叉夹闭和心室颤动时(降低43%)以及采用冷血心脏停搏液时(降低42.4%)。此处总结概念验证试验给出了一些早期证据,表明RIPC可能会使心肌损伤有所减轻。如果得到证实,在未来的临床研究中,这项技术有朝一日可能会成为临床实践中减少再灌注损伤的一种方法。