Li Lan, Li Guogang, Yu Chaohui, Li Youming
Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310003, PR China.
J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013 Mar 9;8:43. doi: 10.1186/1749-8090-8-43.
The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating whether a remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) protocol provides renal protection to patients undergoing cardiac and vascular interventions. Searches were conducted in the databases PUBMED, EMBASE and Cochrane Library. RCTs that fulfilled the inclusion criteria and addressed the clinical questions of this analysis were further assessed. We identified ten studies with a total of 924 patients undergoing cardiac and vascular interventions with or without RIPC. There was a significantly lower incidence of acute kidney injury in the RIPC group compared with control group using the fixed effect model (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.90, P = 0.007), but not with the random effects model (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.06, P = 0.10). There was no difference in the levels of renal biomarkers, incidence of renal replacement therapy, mortality, hospital stay, and intensive care unit stay between two groups. In conclusion, there is no enough evidence that RIPC provided renal protection in patients undergoing cardiac and vascular interventions. Large-scale RCTs are necessary to confirm the potential role of RIPC on renal impairment.
本研究的目的是对随机对照试验(RCT)进行荟萃分析,以调查远程缺血预处理(RIPC)方案是否能为接受心脏和血管介入治疗的患者提供肾脏保护。我们在PUBMED、EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆数据库中进行了检索。对符合纳入标准并涉及本分析临床问题的随机对照试验进行了进一步评估。我们确定了10项研究,共有924例接受或未接受RIPC的心脏和血管介入治疗患者。使用固定效应模型时,RIPC组急性肾损伤的发生率明显低于对照组(RR 0.69,95%CI 0.53至0.90,P = 0.007),但使用随机效应模型时并非如此(RR 0.73,95%CI 0.50至1.06,P = 0.10)。两组之间的肾脏生物标志物水平、肾脏替代治疗发生率、死亡率、住院时间和重症监护病房住院时间没有差异。总之,没有足够的证据表明RIPC能为接受心脏和血管介入治疗的患者提供肾脏保护。需要进行大规模随机对照试验来证实RIPC对肾功能损害的潜在作用。