Pilot randomized controlled trial on early and late remote ischemic preconditioning prior to complex cardiac surgery in young infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Remote ischemic preconditioning involves providing a brief ischemia-reperfusion event to a tissue to create subsequent protection from a more severe ischemia-reperfusion event to a different tissue/organ. The few pediatric remote ischemic preconditioning studies in the literature show conflicting results. AIM: We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial to determine the feasibility of conducting a larger trial and to gather provisional data on the effect of early and late remote ischemic preconditioning on outcomes of infants after surgery for congenital heart disease. METHODS: This single-center, double-blind randomized controlled trial of remote ischemic preconditioning vs control (sham-remote ischemic preconditioning) in young infants going for surgery for congenital heart disease at the Stollery Children's Hospital. Remote ischemic preconditioning was performed at 24-48 h preoperatively and immediately prior to cardiopulmonary bypass. Remote ischemic preconditioning stimulus was performed with blood pressure cuffs around the thighs. Primary outcomes were feasibility and peak blood lactate level on day 1 postoperatively. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were randomized but seven patients became ineligible after randomization leaving 45 patients included in the study. In the included patients, 7 (15%) had protocol deviations (five infants did not have the preoperative intervention and two did not receive the intervention in the operating room). From a comfort point of view, only one subject in the control group and two in the Remote ischemic preconditioning group received sedation during the preoperative intervention. There were no study-related adverse events and no complications to the limbs subjected to preconditioning. There were no significant differences between the Remote ischemic preconditioning group and the control group in the highest blood lactate level on day 1 postoperatively (mean difference, 1.28; 95%CI, -0.22, 2.78; P-value = 0.093). CONCLUSION: In infants who underwent surgery for congenital heart disease, our pilot randomized controlled trial on early and late remote ischemic preconditioning proved to be feasible but did not find any significant difference in acute outcomes. A larger trial may be necessary.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".