Comparing the protective effects of local and remote ischemic preconditioning against ischemia-reperfusion injury in hepatectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

IF 3.8 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Translational gastroenterology and hepatology Pub Date : 2024-03-27 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.21037/tgh-23-95
Yaru Chen, Jin Yan, Kai Wang, Zhenghua Zhu
{"title":"Comparing the protective effects of local and remote ischemic preconditioning against ischemia-reperfusion injury in hepatectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.","authors":"Yaru Chen, Jin Yan, Kai Wang, Zhenghua Zhu","doi":"10.21037/tgh-23-95","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Local ischemic preconditioning (LIPC) has been proven to be a protective strategy against hepatic ischemia-reperfusion injury (HIRI) during hepatectomy. Growing evidence suggests remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) has the potential to reduce liver injury in hepatectomy. Few studies have directly compared the protective effects of these two mechanical preconditioning strategies. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of LIPC and RIPC for hepatic injury during liver resection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Cochrane, PubMed, Embase, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) from the database inception to January 2023. We included studies directly comparing the effectiveness of LIPC and RIPC and those comparing LIPC or RIPC with no-preconditioning in liver resection. Postoperative liver function and surgical events were analyzed. Data were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMDs) or odds ratios (ORs) and analyzed using network meta-analysis with random effects model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Following the screening of 268 citations, we identified 26 eligible randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving 1,476 participants (LIPC arm: 789, RIPC arm: 859, no-preconditioning arm: 1,072). LIPC and RIPC were superior to no-preconditioning in reducing postoperative serum transaminase levels [aspartate aminotransferase (AST): SMD RIPC versus no-preconditioning: -2.05, 95% confidence interval (CI): -3.39, -0.71; SMD LIPC versus no-preconditioning: -1.10, 95% CI: -2.07, -0.12; alanine aminotransferase (ALT): SMD RIPC versus no-preconditioning: -2.24, 95% CI: -4.15, -0.32; SMD LIPC versus no-preconditioning: -1.32, 95% CI: -2.63, -0.01]. No significant difference was observed between RIPC and LIPC in postoperative liver function and surgical outcomes (AST: SMD RIPC versus LIPC: -0.95, 95% CI: -2.52, 0.62; ALT: SMD RIPC versus LIPC: -0.91, 95% CI: -3.11, 1.28). In addition, the subgroup analysis revealed the potential benefits of RIPC in improving liver function, especially in patients who diagnosed with cirrhosis or underwent major resection.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>RIPC and LIPC could serve as effective strategies in relieving HIRI during hepatectomy. No significant differences were observed between LIPC and RIPC, however, RIPC may be an easily applicable strategy to relieve liver injury in hepatectomy.</p>","PeriodicalId":94362,"journal":{"name":"Translational gastroenterology and hepatology","volume":"9 ","pages":"13"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11074492/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational gastroenterology and hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/tgh-23-95","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Local ischemic preconditioning (LIPC) has been proven to be a protective strategy against hepatic ischemia-reperfusion injury (HIRI) during hepatectomy. Growing evidence suggests remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) has the potential to reduce liver injury in hepatectomy. Few studies have directly compared the protective effects of these two mechanical preconditioning strategies. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of LIPC and RIPC for hepatic injury during liver resection.

Methods: We searched Cochrane, PubMed, Embase, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) from the database inception to January 2023. We included studies directly comparing the effectiveness of LIPC and RIPC and those comparing LIPC or RIPC with no-preconditioning in liver resection. Postoperative liver function and surgical events were analyzed. Data were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMDs) or odds ratios (ORs) and analyzed using network meta-analysis with random effects model.

Results: Following the screening of 268 citations, we identified 26 eligible randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving 1,476 participants (LIPC arm: 789, RIPC arm: 859, no-preconditioning arm: 1,072). LIPC and RIPC were superior to no-preconditioning in reducing postoperative serum transaminase levels [aspartate aminotransferase (AST): SMD RIPC versus no-preconditioning: -2.05, 95% confidence interval (CI): -3.39, -0.71; SMD LIPC versus no-preconditioning: -1.10, 95% CI: -2.07, -0.12; alanine aminotransferase (ALT): SMD RIPC versus no-preconditioning: -2.24, 95% CI: -4.15, -0.32; SMD LIPC versus no-preconditioning: -1.32, 95% CI: -2.63, -0.01]. No significant difference was observed between RIPC and LIPC in postoperative liver function and surgical outcomes (AST: SMD RIPC versus LIPC: -0.95, 95% CI: -2.52, 0.62; ALT: SMD RIPC versus LIPC: -0.91, 95% CI: -3.11, 1.28). In addition, the subgroup analysis revealed the potential benefits of RIPC in improving liver function, especially in patients who diagnosed with cirrhosis or underwent major resection.

Conclusions: RIPC and LIPC could serve as effective strategies in relieving HIRI during hepatectomy. No significant differences were observed between LIPC and RIPC, however, RIPC may be an easily applicable strategy to relieve liver injury in hepatectomy.

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
比较局部和远端缺血预处理对肝切除术中缺血再灌注损伤的保护作用:系统综述和网络荟萃分析。
背景:局部缺血预处理(LIPC)已被证明是肝切除术中防止肝缺血再灌注损伤(HIRI)的一种保护性策略。越来越多的证据表明,远程缺血预处理(RIPC)有可能减轻肝切除术中的肝损伤。很少有研究直接比较这两种机械预处理策略的保护作用。因此,我们进行了一项网络荟萃分析,比较 LIPC 和 RIPC 对肝切除术中肝脏损伤的疗效:方法:我们检索了 Cochrane、PubMed、Embase 和中国国家知识基础设施(CNKI)从数据库开始到 2023 年 1 月的数据。我们纳入了直接比较 LIPC 和 RIPC 效果的研究,以及比较肝脏切除术中 LIPC 或 RIPC 与无预处理的研究。对术后肝功能和手术事件进行了分析。数据以标准化平均差(SMDs)或几率比(ORs)表示,并采用随机效应模型进行网络荟萃分析:经过对268篇引文的筛选,我们确定了26项符合条件的随机临床试验(RCT),涉及1476名参与者(LIPC组:789人;RIPC组:859人;无预处理组:1072人)。在降低术后血清转氨酶水平[天冬氨酸氨基转移酶(AST)]方面,LIPC 和 RIPC 优于无预处理:天冬氨酸氨基转移酶(AST):SMD RIPC 与无预处理相比:-2.05,95% 置信区间(CI):-3.39,-0.71;SMD LIPC 与无预处理相比:-1.10,95% CI:-2.07,-0.12;丙氨酸氨基转移酶(ALT):SMD RIPC 与无预处理相比:-2.05,95% 置信区间(CI):-3.39,-0.71;SMD LIPC 与无预处理相比:-1.10,95% CI:-2.07,-0.12:RIPC与无预处理相比,SMD:-2.24,95% CI:-4.15,-0.32;LIPC与无预处理相比,SMD:-1.32,95% CI:-2.63,-0.01]。在术后肝功能和手术结果方面,RIPC 和 LIPC 之间未观察到明显差异(AST:AST:SMD RIPC 与 LIPC 相比:-0.95,95% CI:-2.52,0.62;ALT:SMD RIPC 与 LIPC 相比:-0.91,95% CI:-3.11,1.28)。此外,亚组分析显示,RIPC对改善肝功能有潜在益处,尤其是对确诊为肝硬化或接受大部切除术的患者:结论:RIPC 和 LIPC 可作为肝切除术中缓解 HIRI 的有效策略。结论:RIPC 和 LIPC 可作为缓解肝切除术中肝损伤的有效策略,但 LIPC 和 RIPC 之间无明显差异。
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
REGγ deficiency ameliorates hepatic ischemia and reperfusion injury in a mitochondrial p66shc dependent manner in mice. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a proposal for including preoperative serological indicators improves the Milan criteria expanded. Hepatocellular carcinoma risk prediction and early detection in patients with metabolic dysfunction associated steatotic liver disease. Heterogeneity and prognosis of single organ metastases in gastric cancer. A new era with advanced immunotherapy.
×
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