Menting Theo P, Wever Kimberley E, Ozdemir-van Brunschot Denise Md, Van der Vliet Daan Ja, Rovers Maroeska M, Warle Michiel C
Department of Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, Nijmegen, Gelderland, Netherlands, 6525 GA.
Department of Operating Rooms, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Hp 630, route 631, PO Box 9101, Nijmegen, Netherlands, 6500 HB.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Mar 4;3(3):CD010777. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010777.pub2.
Ischaemia reperfusion injury can lead to kidney dysfunction or failure. Ischaemic preconditioning is a short period of deprivation of blood supply to particular organs or tissue, followed by a period of reperfusion. It has the potential to protect kidneys from ischaemia reperfusion injury.
This review aimed to look at the benefits and harms of local and remote ischaemic preconditioning to reduce ischaemia and reperfusion injury among people with renal ischaemia reperfusion injury.
We searched Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 5 August 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review.
We included all randomised controlled trials measuring kidney function and the role of ischaemic preconditioning in patients undergoing a surgical intervention that induces kidney injury. Kidney transplantation studies were excluded.
Studies were assessed for eligibility and quality; data were extracted by two independent authors. We collected basic study characteristics: type of surgery, remote ischaemic preconditioning protocol, type of anaesthesia. We collected primary outcome measurements: serum creatinine and adverse effects to remote ischaemic preconditioning and secondary outcome measurements: acute kidney injury, need for dialysis, neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, hospital stay and mortality. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes.
We included 28 studies which randomised a total of 6851 patients. Risk of bias assessment indicated unclear to low risk of bias for most studies. For consistency regarding the direction of effects, continuous outcomes with negative values, and dichotomous outcomes with values less than one favour remote ischaemic preconditioning. Based on high quality evidence, remote ischaemic preconditioning made little or no difference to the reduction of serum creatinine levels at postoperative days one (14 studies, 1022 participants: MD -0.02 mg/dL, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.02; I = 21%), two (9 studies, 770 participants: MD -0.04 mg/dL, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.02; I = 31%), and three (6 studies, 417 participants: MD -0.05 mg/dL, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.10; I = 68%) compared to control.Serious adverse events occurred in four patients receiving remote ischaemic preconditioning by iliac clamping. It is uncertain whether remote ischaemic preconditioning by cuff inflation leads to increased adverse effects compared to control because the certainty of the evidence is low (15 studies, 3993 participants: RR 3.47, 95% CI 0.55 to 21.76; I = 0%); only two of 15 studies reported any adverse effects (6/1999 in the remote ischaemic preconditioning group and 1/1994 in the control group), the remaining 13 studies stated no adverse effects were observed in either group.Compared to control, remote ischaemic preconditioning made little or no difference to the need for dialysis (13 studies, 2417 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.94; I = 60%; moderate quality evidence), length of hospital stay (8 studies, 920 participants: MD 0.17 days, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.80; I = 49%, high quality evidence), or all-cause mortality (24 studies, 4931 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.37; I = 0%, high quality evidence).Remote ischaemic preconditioning may have slightly improved the incidence of acute kidney injury using either the AKIN (8 studies, 2364 participants: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.00; I = 61%, high quality evidence) or RIFLE criteria (3 studies, 1586 participants: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.12; I = 0%, moderate quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Remote ischaemic preconditioning by cuff inflation appears to be a safe method, and probably leads to little or no difference in serum creatinine, adverse effects, need for dialysis, length of hospital stay, death and in the incidence of acute kidney injury. Overall we had moderate-high certainty evidence however the available data does not confirm the efficacy of remote ischaemic preconditioning in reducing renal ischaemia reperfusion injury in patients undergoing major cardiac and vascular surgery in which renal ischaemia reperfusion injury may occur.
缺血再灌注损伤可导致肾功能障碍或衰竭。缺血预处理是对特定器官或组织进行短时间的血液供应剥夺,随后进行一段时间的再灌注。它有可能保护肾脏免受缺血再灌注损伤。
本综述旨在探讨局部和远程缺血预处理对减少肾缺血再灌注损伤患者缺血和再灌注损伤的益处和危害。
我们通过与信息专家联系,使用与本综述相关的检索词,检索了截至2016年8月5日的Cochrane肾脏与移植专业注册库。
我们纳入了所有测量肾功能以及缺血预处理在接受导致肾损伤的外科手术患者中的作用的随机对照试验。排除肾脏移植研究。
对研究进行资格和质量评估;数据由两名独立作者提取。我们收集了基本研究特征:手术类型、远程缺血预处理方案、麻醉类型。我们收集了主要结局指标:血清肌酐以及对远程缺血预处理的不良反应,以及次要结局指标:急性肾损伤、透析需求、中性粒细胞明胶酶相关脂质运载蛋白、住院时间和死亡率。使用随机效应模型获得效应的汇总估计值,结果以二分类结局的风险比(RR)及其95%置信区间(CI)表示,以连续结局的均值差(MD)及其95%CI表示。
我们纳入了28项研究,共随机分配了6851名患者。偏倚风险评估表明,大多数研究的偏倚风险为低至不明确。对于效应方向的一致性,负值的连续结局以及值小于1的二分类结局有利于远程缺血预处理。基于高质量证据,与对照组相比,远程缺血预处理在术后第1天(14项研究,1022名参与者:MD -0.02mg/dL,95%CI -0.05至0.02;I² = 21%)、第2天(9项研究,770名参与者:MD -0.04mg/dL,95%CI -0.09至0.02;I² = 31%)和第3天(6项研究,417名参与者:MD -0.05mg/dL,95%CI -0.19至0.10;I² = 68%)对降低血清肌酐水平几乎没有或没有差异。4名接受髂动脉夹闭进行远程缺血预处理的患者发生了严重不良事件。与对照组相比,通过袖带充气进行远程缺血预处理是否会导致不良反应增加尚不确定,因为证据的确定性较低(15项研究,3993名参与者:RR 3.47,95%CI 0.55至21.76;I² = 0%);15项研究中只有2项报告了任何不良反应(远程缺血预处理组1999例中有6例,对照组1994例中有1例),其余13项研究表明两组均未观察到不良反应。与对照组相比,远程缺血预处理在透析需求(13项研究,2417名参与者:RR 0.85,95%CI 0.37至1.94;I² = 60%;中等质量证据)、住院时间(8项研究,920名参与者:MD 0.17天,95%CI -0.46至0.80;I² = 49%,高质量证据)或全因死亡率(24项研究,4931名参与者:RR 0.86,95%CI 0.54至1.37;I² = 0%,高质量证据)方面几乎没有或没有差异。使用AKIN标准(8项研究,2364名参与者:RR 0.76,95%CI 0.57至1.00;I² = 61%,高质量证据)或RIFLE标准(3项研究,1586名参与者:RR 0.91,95%CI 0.75至1.12;I² = 0%,中等质量证据),远程缺血预处理可能略微改善了急性肾损伤的发生率。
通过袖带充气进行远程缺血预处理似乎是一种安全的方法,并且在血清肌酐、不良反应、透析需求、住院时间、死亡以及急性肾损伤发生率方面可能几乎没有差异。总体而言,我们有中高度确定性的证据,然而现有数据并未证实远程缺血预处理在减少可能发生肾缺血再灌注损伤的心脏和血管大手术患者的肾缺血再灌注损伤方面的疗效。