MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294724695 · doi:10.3389/fcvm.2022.952033

Neuroprotective effect of remote ischemic preconditioning in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: A randomized controlled trial

2022· article· en· W4294724695 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shouqiang Zhu, Ziyu Zheng, Wenying Lv, Pengrong Ouyang, Jiange Han, Jiaqiang Zhang, Hailong Dong, Chong Lei

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Ischemia and Reperfusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaChinese Medical AssociationTongji UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaIschemic preconditioningRandomized controlled trialClinical endpointCardiopulmonary bypassCardiac surgeryNeuroprotectionCoronary artery bypass surgeryPlaceboConfidence intervalArteryCardiologySurgeryIschemiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The neuroprotective effect of remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) in patients undergoing elective cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB)-assisted coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or valvular cardiac surgery remains unclear. Methods A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled superior clinical trial was conducted in patients undergoing elective on-pump coronary artery bypass surgery or valve surgery. Before anesthesia induction, patients were randomly assigned to RIPC (three 5-min cycles of inflation and deflation of blood pressure cuff on the upper limb) or the control group. The primary endpoint was the changes in S-100 calcium-binding protein β (S100-β) levels at 6 h postoperatively. Secondary endpoints included changes in Neuron-specific enolase (NSE), Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) levels. Results A total of 120 patients [mean age, 48.7 years; 36 women (34.3%)] were randomized at three cardiac surgery centers in China. One hundred and five patients were included in the modified intent-to-treat analysis (52 in the RIPC group and 53 in the control group). The primary result demonstrated that at 6 h after surgery, S100-β levels were lower in the RIPC group than in the control group (50.75; 95% confidence interval, 67.08 to 64.40 pg/ml vs. 70.48; 95% CI, 56.84 to 84.10 pg/ml, P = 0.036). Compared to the control group, the concentrations of S100-β at 24 h and 72 h and the concentration of NSE at 6 h, 24 h, and 72 h postoperatively were significantly lower in the RIPC group. However, neither the MMSE nor the MoCA revealed significant between-group differences in postoperative cognitive performance at 7 days, 3 months, and 6 months after surgery. Conclusion In patients undergoing CPB-assisted cardiac surgery, RIPC attenuated brain damage as indicated with the decreased release of brain damage biomarker S100-β and NSE. Clinical trial registration [ ClinicalTrials.gov ], identifier [NCT01231789].

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Cardiovascular MedicineSame topicCardiac Ischemia and ReperfusionFrench-language works237,207