Comparison Between the Protective Effect of Isoflurane and Propofol on Myocardium During Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Qi Bao, Min Lei, Dongju Xiao, Junran Xie
{"title":"Comparison Between the Protective Effect of Isoflurane and Propofol on Myocardium During Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials","authors":"Qi Bao, Min Lei, Dongju Xiao, Junran Xie","doi":"10.21470/1678-9741-2021-0424","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective Intravenous non-volatile anaesthetics like propofol are commonly used in cardiac surgeries across several countries. Volatile anaesthetics like isoflurane may help in protecting the myocardium and minimize ischaemia-reperfusion injury. Hence, we did this review to compare the cardioprotective effect of isoflurane and propofol among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Methods We conducted a search in the databases Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (or MEDLINE), Embase, PubMed Central®, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library from inception until April 2021. We carried out a meta-analysis with random-effects model and reported pooled risk ratio (RR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) depending on the type of outcome. Results We analysed 13 studies including 808 participants. Almost all were low-quality studies. For cardiac index, the pooled SMD was 0.14 (95% CI: -0.22 to 0.50); for cardiac troponin I, pooled SMD was 0.10 (95% CI: -0.28 to 0.48). For mortality, the RR was 3.00 (95% CI: 0.32 to 28.43); for MI, pooled RR was 1.58 (95% CI: 0.59 to 4.20); and for inotropic drug use, pooled RR was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.90 to 1.21). For length of intensive care unit stay, the pooled SMD was 0.13 (95% CI: -0.29 to 0.55), while pooled SMD for mechanical ventilation time was -0.02 (95% CI: -0.54 to 0.51). Conclusion Isoflurane did not have significant cardioprotective effect compared to propofol following CABG. Hence, the anaesthetists need to check some viable alternatives to manage these patients and reduce the rate of postoperative complications.","PeriodicalId":72457,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21470/1678-9741-2021-0424","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective Intravenous non-volatile anaesthetics like propofol are commonly used in cardiac surgeries across several countries. Volatile anaesthetics like isoflurane may help in protecting the myocardium and minimize ischaemia-reperfusion injury. Hence, we did this review to compare the cardioprotective effect of isoflurane and propofol among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Methods We conducted a search in the databases Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (or MEDLINE), Embase, PubMed Central®, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library from inception until April 2021. We carried out a meta-analysis with random-effects model and reported pooled risk ratio (RR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) depending on the type of outcome. Results We analysed 13 studies including 808 participants. Almost all were low-quality studies. For cardiac index, the pooled SMD was 0.14 (95% CI: -0.22 to 0.50); for cardiac troponin I, pooled SMD was 0.10 (95% CI: -0.28 to 0.48). For mortality, the RR was 3.00 (95% CI: 0.32 to 28.43); for MI, pooled RR was 1.58 (95% CI: 0.59 to 4.20); and for inotropic drug use, pooled RR was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.90 to 1.21). For length of intensive care unit stay, the pooled SMD was 0.13 (95% CI: -0.29 to 0.55), while pooled SMD for mechanical ventilation time was -0.02 (95% CI: -0.54 to 0.51). Conclusion Isoflurane did not have significant cardioprotective effect compared to propofol following CABG. Hence, the anaesthetists need to check some viable alternatives to manage these patients and reduce the rate of postoperative complications.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
异氟醚和丙泊酚对冠状动脉旁路移植术中心肌保护作用的比较:随机对照试验的系统回顾和元分析
目的 多个国家在心脏手术中普遍使用异丙酚等静脉注射非挥发性麻醉剂。异氟醚等挥发性麻醉剂可能有助于保护心肌和减少缺血再灌注损伤。因此,我们撰写了这篇综述,以比较异氟醚和异丙酚对接受冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)的患者的心脏保护作用。方法 我们在医学文献分析和检索系统在线(或 MEDLINE)、Embase、PubMed Central®、ScienceDirect、Google Scholar 和 Cochrane Library 等数据库中进行了检索,检索时间从开始到 2021 年 4 月。我们采用随机效应模型进行了荟萃分析,并根据结果类型报告了汇集风险比(RR)或标准化平均差(SMD)及 95% 置信区间(CI)。结果 我们分析了包括 808 名参与者在内的 13 项研究。几乎所有研究都是低质量研究。就心脏指数而言,汇总的 SMD 为 0.14(95% CI:-0.22 至 0.50);就心肌肌钙蛋白 I 而言,汇总的 SMD 为 0.10(95% CI:-0.28 至 0.48)。死亡率的RR为3.00(95% CI:0.32至28.43);心肌梗死的汇总RR为1.58(95% CI:0.59至4.20);使用肌力药物的汇总RR为1.04(95% CI:0.90至1.21)。重症监护室住院时间的集合 SMD 为 0.13(95% CI:-0.29 至 0.55),机械通气时间的集合 SMD 为-0.02(95% CI:-0.54 至 0.51)。结论 与异丙酚相比,异氟醚在 CABG 术后没有显著的心脏保护作用。因此,麻醉师需要检查一些可行的替代方案来管理这些患者并降低术后并发症的发生率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Usefulness of Microcirculatory Assessment After Cardiac Surgery: Illustrative Case Report. Risk Model for Laryngeal Complications Prediction in Chinese PatientGBVs After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting. Artificial Intelligence in the Hands of Perfusionists: Revolutionizing Cardiopulmonary Bypass. Assessment of EuroSCORE II and STS Score Performance and the Impact of Surgical Urgency in Isolated Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery at a Referral Center in São Paulo, Brazil. Comparison of the Effect of Pump Flow Type (Pulsatile or Non-Pulsatile) on Postoperative Neurocognitive Functions in Coronary Artery Surgery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1