دورية أكاديمية

90 days impacts of remote ischemic preconditioning on patients undergoing open total aortic arch replacement: a post-hoc analysis of previous trial

التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
العنوان: 90 days impacts of remote ischemic preconditioning on patients undergoing open total aortic arch replacement: a post-hoc analysis of previous trial
المؤلفون: Yimeng Chen, Guyan Wang, Hui Zhou, Lijing Yang, Congya Zhang, Xiying Yang, Guiyu Lei
المصدر: BMC Anesthesiology, Vol 20, Iss 1, Pp 1-7 (2020)
بيانات النشر: BMC, 2020.
سنة النشر: 2020
المجموعة: LCC:Anesthesiology
مصطلحات موضوعية: Remote ischemic preconditioning, Open total aortic arch replacement, Major adverse kidney events, Anesthesiology, RD78.3-87.3
الوصف: Abstract Background In the previous randomized controlled trial by our research group, we evaluated the effect of remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) in 130 patients (65 per arm) on acute kidney injury (AKI) within 7 days of open total aortic arch replacement. Significantly fewer RIPC-treated patients than sham-treated patients developed postoperative AKI, and, epically, RIPC significantly reduced serious AKI (stage II–III). However, the long-term effect of RIPC in patients undergoing open total aortic arch replacement is unclear. Methods This study was a post-hoc analysis. We aimed to assess the roles of RIPC in major adverse kidney events (MAKE), defined as consisting persistent renal dysfunction, renal replacement therapy and mortality, within 90 days after surgery in patients receiving open total aortic arch replacement. Results In this 90-day follow-up study, data were available for all study participants. We found that RIPC failed to improve the presence of MAKE within 90 days after surgery (RIPC: 7 of 65[10.8%]) vs sham: 15 of 65[23.1%]; P = 0.061). In those patients who developed AKI after surgery, we found that the rate of MAKE within 90 days after surgery differed between the RIPC group and the sham group (RIPC: 4 of 36[11.2%]; sham: 14 of 48[29.2%]; P = 0.046). Conclusions At 90 days after open total aortic arch replacement, we failed to find a difference between the renoprotective effects of RIPC and sham treatment. The effectiveness or ineffectiveness of RIPC should be further investigated in a large randomized sham-controlled trial. Trial registration This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Fuwai Hospital (No. 2016–835) and our previous study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov before patient enrollment ( NCT03141385 ; principal investigator: G.W.; date of registration: March 5, 2017).
نوع الوثيقة: article
وصف الملف: electronic resource
اللغة: English
تدمد: 1471-2253
Relation: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12871-020-01085-9; https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2253
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-020-01085-9
URL الوصول: https://doaj.org/article/d44a50f9e33a41539b43b47a3fe81ea9
رقم الأكسشن: edsdoj.44a50f9e33a41539b43b47a3fe81ea9
قاعدة البيانات: Directory of Open Access Journals
الوصف
تدمد:14712253
DOI:10.1186/s12871-020-01085-9