Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Aim
to compare a conventional primary reperfusion strategy with a primary unloading approach before reperfusion in preclinical studies.Methods
we performed a meta-analysis of preclinical studies. The primary endpoint was infarct size (IS). Secondary endpoints were left ventricle end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), cardiac output (CO). We calculated mean differences (MDs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses on the primary and secondary endpoints, as well as a meta-regression on the primary endpoint using the year of publication as a covariate, were also conducted.Results
11 studies (n = 142) were selected and entered in the meta-analysis. Primary unloading reduced IS (MD -28.82, 95% CI -35.78 to -21.86, I2 96%, p < 0.01) and LVEDP (MD -3.88, 95% CI -5.33 to -2.44, I2 56%, p = 0.02) and increased MAP (MD 7.26, 95% CI 1.40 to 13.12, I2 43%, p < 0.01) and HR (MD 5.26, 95% CI 1.97 to 8.55, I2 1%, p < 0.01), while being neutral on CO (MD -0.11, 95% CI -0.95 to 0.72, I2 88%, p = 0.79). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses showed, overall, consistent results. The meta-regression on the primary endpoint demonstrated a significant influence of the year of publication on effect estimate.Conclusions
in animal models of myocardial infarction, a primary unloading significantly reduces IS and exerts beneficial hemodynamic effects compared to a primary reperfusion.
SUBMITTER: Benenati S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9409839 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Benenati Stefano S Crimi Gabriele G Macchione Andrea A Giachero Corinna C Pescetelli Fabio F Balbi Manrico M Porto Italo I Vercellino Matteo M
Journal of clinical medicine 20220821 16
Aim: to compare a conventional primary reperfusion strategy with a primary unloading approach before reperfusion in preclinical studies. Methods: we performed a meta-analysis of preclinical studies. The primary endpoint was infarct size (IS). Secondary endpoints were left ventricle end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), cardiac output (CO). We calculated mean differences (MDs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses ...[more]