Myocardial protection with volatile anaesthetic agents during coronary artery bypass surgery: a meta-analysis

Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Alfred Hospital, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
BJA British Journal of Anaesthesia (Impact Factor: 4.35). 09/2006; 97(2):127-36. DOI: 10.1093/bja/ael149
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Previous studies have investigated the role of volatile anaesthetic agents in myocardial protection during coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, and some have identified beneficial effects. However, these studies have been too small to identify a significant effect on myocardial infarction (MI) or mortality. We undertook a systematic overview and meta-analysis of all randomized trials comparing volatile with non-volatile anaesthesia in CABG surgery. We identified 27 trials that included 2979 patients. There was no significant difference in myocardial ischaemia, MI, intensive care unit length of stay or hospital mortality between the groups (all P>0.05). Post-bypass, patients randomized to receive volatile anaesthetics had 20% higher cardiac indices (P=0.006), significantly lower troponin I serum concentrations (P=0.002) and lesser requirement for inotropic support (P=0.004) compared with those randomized to receive i.v. anaesthetics. Duration of mechanical ventilation was reduced by 2.7 h (P=0.04), and there was a 1 day decrease in hospital length of stay (P<0.001). Some of these outcomes were based on a smaller number of trials because of incomplete data, largely because the individual trials focused on one or more surrogate endpoints. We found some evidence that volatile anaesthetic agents provide myocardial protection in CABG surgery, but larger adequately powered trials with agreed, defined outcomes need to be done to fully assess a possible beneficial effect of volatile anaesthetic agents on the risk of MI and mortality.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery by avoiding cardioplegic arrest seems to reduce the risk of ischemic myocardial injury. However, even short-term regional ischemic periods, hemodynamic instability and arrhythmias associated with the procedure can be responsible for myocardial damage. Conditioning, a potential cardio-protective tool during on-pump cardiac surgery, has hardly been investigated in the context of off-pump surgery. There are virtually no large trials on remote ischemic preconditioning and the majority of reports have focused on central ischemic conditioning. Similarly, volatile anesthetic agents with conditioning effect like ischemic preconditioning have been shown to reduce cardiac injury during on-pump procedures but have not been validated in the off-pump scenario. Here, we review the available evidence on myocardial conditioning, either with ischemia/reperfusion or volatile anesthetic agents in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery surgery.
    Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery 01/2015; 10(1):7. DOI:10.1186/s13019-014-0204-7 · 1.02 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We assessed whether aortic cross-clamping or limb remote ischemic preconditioning improved postoperative outcomes, reduced myocardial injury and incidences of postoperative complications in patients undergoing on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials databases were searched for studies comparing the effects of ischemic preconditioning with no preconditioning in adult patients undergoing on-pump CABG. The primary end points were mechanical ventilation time, the length of stay in intensive care unit and hospital, whereas the secondary end points were peak values of myocardial biomarkers and postoperative complications. Mean differences were estimated for the primary end points, as well as standard mean differences and odds ratios for the secondary end points. A total of 29 randomized controlled trials with 1791 patients were included. Compared with control group, aortic cross-clamping preconditioning reduced mechanical ventilation time (mean difference [95% confidence interval {CI}]) (-5.59 h [-9.21 to -1.96]), whereas limb remote ischemic preconditioning was not associated with improvement of postoperative outcomes. For myocardial biomarkers, both aortic cross-clamping and limb remote ischemic preconditioning reduced peak values of myocardial biomarkers (standard mean difference [95% CI]) (-0.48 [-0.81 to -0.14]; -0.19 [-0.36 to -0.02], respectively). Subgroup analysis showed that aortic cross-clamping preconditioning protocols with ischemia episodes <5 min did reduce the release of biomarkers (-0.69 [-1.04 to -0.34]) but those with 5 min ischemia episodes elevated them (0.40 [0.04-0.75]). Cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, renal, and intestinal complications were reported, and aortic cross-clamping preconditioning seemed to reduce the incidences of cardiac arrhythmia (odds ratio [95% CI]) (0.46 [0.27-0.80], P = 0.006). Cardiac surgeons could consider aortic cross-clamping or limb remote ischemic preconditioning to reduce myocardial injury during CABG. Moreover, aortic cross-clamping preconditioning is associated with a decreased risk of postoperative respiratory failure and cardiac arrhythmia. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Journal of Surgical Research 10/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.jss.2014.10.007 · 2.12 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Previous studies have reported the cardioprotective effect of dexmedetomidine and lidocaine. We compared the effect of lidocaine and dexmedetomidine infusion during off-pump coronary artery bypass graft (OPCAB).
    Contemporary Clinical Trials 11/2014; 39(2). DOI:10.1016/j.cct.2014.10.005 · 1.99 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Aug 25, 2014

Similar Publications