Key result
Ischemic postconditioning fails to reduce infarct size on CMR versus usual care in STEMI.
Why the study?
Does ischemic postconditioning reduce infarct size and improve clinical outcomes in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary PCI?
Meta-Analysis
Does ischemic postconditioning reduce infarct size and improve clinical outcomes in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary PCI?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Ischemic postconditioning during primary PCI for STEMI does not significantly reduce infarct size or improve most clinical outcomes, though it may have a beneficial effect on the incidence of congestive heart failure.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to summarize the evidence from randomized clinical trials studies examining the efficacy of ischemic postconditioning (IPost) in ST-elevation myocardial infarction. DESIGN: The study was a systematic review and critical appraisal, with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the literature. A total of 21 randomized clinical trials were identified. Both fixed effect and random effects models were used to synthesize the results of individual studies. Heterogeneity between studies was examined by subgroup and random effects meta-regression analyses, considering ptient-related and study-level variables. Publication bias, or "small-study effect", was evaluated. RESULTS: Substantial heterogeneity was present. The random effects model pooled estimate for the outcome infarct size assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance was estimated by the standardized mean difference (SMD) =-0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.34 to 0.21, ie, no effect of IPost. For the end point infarct size, estimated by biomarkers of myocardial necrosis, an overall pooled effect was SMD =-0.58, 95% CI: -0.96 to -0.19. This effect disappeared in powered and nonbiased studies (SMD =0.03, 95% CI: -0.48 to 0.55). Finally, for the outcome left ventricular ejection fraction, SMD =0.47 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.74. Unfortunately, selection bias (small-study effect) was present. For this outcome, the meta-regression showed that both presence of hypertension and the inclusion of nonbiased studies explained 28.3% of the heterogeneity among the studies. Simulation by the "trim and fill" method, which controlled for selection bias using random effects model, diluted the effect (SMD =0.17 95% CI: -0.13 to 0.48). No effects by IPost on ST-segment resolution or on the majority of adverse clinical events were observed during follow up, except the incidence of congestive heart failure was found. CONCLUSION: Evidence from this study suggests no cardioprotection from IPost, on surrogate and the majority of clinical end points. A possible beneficial effect on the incidence of congestive heart failure needs to be replicated by a large clinical trial.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abdelnoor et al. (2014) conducted a meta-analysis in ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Ischemic postconditioning (IPost) vs. Usual care was evaluated on Infarct size estimated by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.21, p=0.625). Ischemic postconditioning did not reduce infarct size assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance compared to usual care in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: