MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2616065355 · doi:10.1161/jaha.117.005522

Remote Ischemic Perconditioning to Reduce Reperfusion Injury During Acute ST‐Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

2017· review· en· W2616065355 on OpenAlexaff
Shelley McLeod, Alla Iansavichene, Sheldon Cheskes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Ischemia and Reperfusion
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's HospitalSchwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine InstituteLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook HospitalMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConventional PCIMedicinePercutaneous coronary interventionMyocardial infarctionInternal medicineConfidence intervalRelative riskCardiologyRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) is a noninvasive therapeutic strategy that uses brief cycles of blood pressure cuff inflation and deflation to protect the myocardium against ischemia-reperfusion injury. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the impact of RIC on myocardial salvage index, infarct size, and major adverse cardiovascular events when initiated before catheterization. METHODS AND RESULTS: Electronic searches of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were conducted and reference lists were hand searched. Randomized controlled trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with and without RIC for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction were included. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts, assessed quality of the studies, and extracted data. Data were pooled using random-effects models and reported as mean differences and relative risk with 95% confidence intervals. Eleven articles (9 randomized controlled trials) were included with a total of 1220 patients (RIC+PCI=643, PCI=577). Studies with no events were excluded from meta-analysis. The myocardial salvage index was higher in the RIC+PCI group compared with the PCI group (mean difference: 0.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.14). Infarct size was reduced in the RIC+PCI group compared with the PCI group (mean difference: -2.46; 95% confidence interval, -4.66 to -0.26). Major adverse cardiovascular events were lower in the RIC+PCI group (9.5%) compared with the PCI group (17.0%; relative risk: 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.82). CONCLUSIONS: RIC appears to be a promising adjunctive treatment to PCI for the prevention of reperfusion injury in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction; however, additional high-quality research is required before a change in practice can be considered.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.026
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations78
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicCardiac Ischemia and ReperfusionFrench-language works237,207