Anaesthetics, Pain Medicine, and Intensive Care Section, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Anaesthetics, Pain Medicine, and Intensive Care Section, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Royal British Legion Centre for Blast Injury Studies, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Br J Anaesth. 2022 Aug;129(2):200-218. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.04.016. Epub 2022 Jun 7.
The noble gases argon and xenon are potential novel neuroprotective treatments for acquired brain injuries. Xenon has already undergone early-stage clinical trials in the treatment of ischaemic brain injuries, with mixed results. Argon has yet to progress to clinical trials as a treatment for brain injury. Here, we aim to synthesise the results of preclinical studies evaluating argon and xenon as neuroprotective therapies for brain injuries.
After a systematic review of the MEDLINE and Embase databases, we carried out a pairwise and stratified meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was examined by subgroup analysis, funnel plot asymmetry, and Egger's regression.
A total of 32 studies were identified, 14 for argon and 18 for xenon, involving measurements from 1384 animals, including murine, rat, and porcine models. Brain injury models included ischaemic brain injury after cardiac arrest (CA), neurological injury after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), traumatic brain injury (TBI), and ischaemic stroke. Both argon and xenon had significant (P<0.001), positive neuroprotective effect sizes. The overall effect size for argon (CA, TBI, stroke) was 18.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.1-28.1%), and for xenon (CA, TBI, stroke) was 34.1% (95% CI, 24.7-43.6%). Including the CPB model, only present for xenon, the xenon effect size (CPB, CA, TBI, stroke) was 27.4% (95% CI, 11.5-43.3%). Xenon, both with and without the CPB model, was significantly (P<0.001) more protective than argon.
These findings provide evidence to support the use of xenon and argon as neuroprotective treatments for acquired brain injuries. Current evidence suggests that xenon is more efficacious than argon overall.
惰性气体氩气和氙气是治疗后天性脑损伤的潜在新型神经保护治疗方法。氙气已在缺血性脑损伤的治疗中进行了早期临床试验,但结果喜忧参半。氩气尚未作为脑损伤的治疗方法进入临床试验。在这里,我们旨在综合评估氩气和氙气作为脑损伤神经保护治疗的临床前研究结果。
在对 MEDLINE 和 Embase 数据库进行系统审查后,我们进行了成对和分层荟萃分析。通过亚组分析、漏斗图不对称性和 Egger 回归检查异质性。
共确定了 32 项研究,其中 14 项为氩气,18 项为氙气,涉及来自 1384 只动物的测量结果,包括鼠、大鼠和猪模型。脑损伤模型包括心脏骤停(CA)后的缺血性脑损伤、体外循环(CPB)后的神经损伤、创伤性脑损伤(TBI)和缺血性中风。氩气和氙气均具有显著的(P<0.001)、积极的神经保护作用大小。氩气(CA、TBI、中风)的总体作用大小为 18.1%(95%置信区间[CI],8.1-28.1%),氙气(CA、TBI、中风)的作用大小为 34.1%(95% CI,24.7-43.6%)。包括仅存在于氙气的 CPB 模型,氙气(CPB、CA、TBI、中风)的作用大小为 27.4%(95% CI,11.5-43.3%)。包括 CPB 模型在内,氙气比氩气更具有保护作用(P<0.001)。
这些发现为将氙气和氩气用作后天性脑损伤的神经保护治疗方法提供了证据。目前的证据表明,总体而言,氙气比氩气更有效。