Perioperative diltiazem or nitroglycerin in on-pump coronary artery bypass: A systematic review and network meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Arterial graft spasm is a severe complication after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). Among numerous potential antispasmodic agents, systemic application of diltiazem and nitroglycerin had been investigated most frequently over the past three decades. However, it remains inconclusive if either or both agents could improve patient outcomes by preventing graft spasm when applied perioperatively, and, if so, which one would be a better choice. The current systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to summarize the data from all available randomized clinical trials of perioperative continuous intravenous infusion of diltiazem and/or nitroglycerin in patients undergoing on-pump CABG in order to define and compare their roles in graft spasm prevention and their impacts on perioperative outcomes. METHODS: We searched Ovid Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, Google Scholar and Cochrane Center for randomized controlled trials that reported outcome effects of perioperative continuous intravenous infusion of diltiazem and/or nitroglycerin in patients undergoing elective on-pump CABG. Conventional meta-analyses were conducted to evaluate the pairwise comparisons (diltiazem vs. placebo; nitroglycerin vs. placebo; diltiazem vs. nitroglycerin) on perioperative outcomes. Network meta-analyses were implemented to compare the three regimens through direct and indirect comparison. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies involving 1,660 patients were included. Pairwise and network meta-analyses found no significant difference in mortality among the groups. There are four studies that reported blood flow measurements of internal mammary artery grafts intraoperatively after dissecting or immediately after distal anastomosis while patients were on continuous intravenous infusion of diltiazem and nitroglycerin. Although insufficient for data synthesis, the measured results from all four studies suggest that both diltiazem and nitroglycerin significantly increased blood flow of arterial grafts compared to placebo. For other perioperative outcomes, compared to diltiazem, patients that received nitroglycerin had higher odds of postoperative atrial fibrillation (OR = 2.67, 95% CI: 1.15 to 6.24) and higher peak serum cardiac enzymes. Patients that received placebo had higher odds of atrial fibrillation (OR = 3.00, 95% CI: 1.18 to 7.63) and lower odds of requiring inotrope support (OR = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.73) compared to diltiazem. Data from the network meta-analysis indicated that diltiazem had significantly lower odds of postoperative atrial fibrillation compared to nitroglycerin (OR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.85). In fact, the rank from highest to lowest rates of postoperative atrial fibrillation was placebo>nitroglycerin>diltiazem. The rank from highest to lowest odds of requiring inotropic support is nitroglycerin> diltiazem>placebo. However, placebo had significantly higher odds of postoperative myocardial infarction than diltiazem (OR = 4.51, 95% CI: 1.34 to 15.25). The rank from highest to lowest odds of postoperative myocardial infarction, transient cardiac ischemic event and atrial fibrillation is placebo>nitroglycerin>diltiazem. CONCLUSION: Compared to nitroglycerin and placebo, perioperative continuous intravenous infusion of diltiazem had stronger protective effects against postoperative ischemic cardiac injuries and atrial fibrillation although patients may need more inotropic support. The increased blood flow from diltiazem use in arterial grafts may potentially contribute to the drug's outcome benefits.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".