Does magnesium-supplemented cardioplegia reduce cardiac injury? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Duan L, Zhang CF, Luo WJ, Gao Y, Chen R, Hu GH
Journal of cardiac surgery · 8 citations
How it was studied
- Design
- Meta-analysis (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Clinical events such as disease or death
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Independent funding
- Government
- Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province
- Government
- Hunan Sci-Tech Project
- Government
- Hunan Provincial Natural Science Foundation
- Grants
- Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province (13JJ3016)
Based on 3 listed funder(s).
Publication
- Published
- 2015-02-04 · J Card Surg · vol. 30 · issue 4 · pp. 338–345
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Cited
- 14 citations · more than 41% of similar papers · 0.3× the field average
- References
- 35 works
- Access
- Paywalled
- Research areas
- Cardiac Ischemia and Reperfusion · Cardiac Arrest and Resuscitation · Cardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
- Keywords
- Medicine, Randomized controlled trial, Cardiac surgery, Myocardial infarction, Inotrope, Cardiopulmonary bypass, Cochrane Library, Anesthesia, Placebo, Magnesium, Atrial fibrillation, Incidence (geometry), Cardiology, Internal medicine
- MeSH
- humans, atrial fibrillation, cardiac output, low, myocardial infarction, postoperative complications, magnesium, cardioplegic solutions, cardiotonic agents, length of stay, cardiopulmonary bypass, incidence, hospital mortality, databases, bibliographic, randomized controlled trials as topic
6 authors
From CN
- Lian DuanCentral South University; Xiangya Hospital Central South University
- Chunfang ZhangCentral South University; Xiangya Hospital Central South University
- Wanjun LuoCentral South University; Xiangya Hospital Central South University
- Yang GaoCentral South University; Xiangya Hospital Central South University
- Ri ChenCentral South University; Xiangya Hospital Central South University
- Guo‐Huang Hu · correspondingHunan Normal University; Fourth Hospital of Changsha
Abstract
Background
Magnesium is often used to supplement cardioplegic solutions during cardiopulmonary bypass due to its cardioprotective effect during ischemia and reperfusion. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of magnesium-supplemented cardioplegia versus an inactive (placebo) control cardioplegia on reducing cardiac injury after cardiac arrest surgery, as found by randomized, controlled trials.
Methods
The Medline, Cochrane Library, and Chinese literature databases (CJFD, CBM, CSJD, Wanfang) were comprehensively searched for reports of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating magnesium-supplemented cardioplegic solutions. The clinical parameters and outcomes of interest were the incidence of postoperative low cardiac output, auto-rebeating rate, ICU stay length, new onset postoperative atrial fibrillation, peak value of CK-MB (and/or cTnI), incidence of myocardial infarction, and in-hospital mortality.
Results
Ten trials, with a total of 1214 patients, were included. The frequency of low cardiac output, inotropic utilization, and myocardial infarction, as well as auto-rebeating rate, length of ICU stay and in-hospital mortality, were similar between the two groups. There was a marginal reduction in the incidence of new-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation in the magnesium-supplemented cardioplegia group.
Conclusions
The advantage of magnesium-supplemented cardioplegia, compared with cardioplegia without magnesium, remains unconvincing based on the current evidence. The decision to add magnesium to the cardioplegic solution to a patient undergoing cardiac arrest surgery should be carefully considered.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher.
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.