Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/16900
Title: Remote ischemic conditioning for kidney protection: A meta-analysis
Austin Authors: Zhang, Ling;Diao, Yongshu;Chen, Guangjun;Tanaka, Aiko;Eastwood, Glenn M ;Bellomo, Rinaldo 
Affiliation: Department of Intensive Care Unit, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
Department of Nephrology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Sichuan, Chengdu, China
Department of Anesthesiology, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Issue Date: Jun-2016
metadata.dc.date: 2016-02-10
Publication information: Journal of Critical Care 2016; 33: 224-232
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning kidney effect of remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) are inconsistent. METHODS: We searched for relevant studies in Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and Chinese database (SinoMed), as well as relevant references from their inception to November 2015. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all eligible RCTs of RIC with kidney events. RESULTS: We included 37 RCTs from 2007 to 2015 involving 8168 patients. Pooled analyses of all RCTs showed RIC significantly reduced the incidence of investigator-defined acute kidney injury (AKI) compared with control groups (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.96, P = .009) (I(2) = 25%). However, the difference was not significant when only RIFLE (Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, End Stage), AKIN (Acute Kidney Injury Network), or KDIGO (Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes) criteria were applied to the definition of AKI (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74-1.02, P = .08) (I(2) = 22%). In subgroup analysis, RIC showed a significant benefit on reducing investigator-defined AKI in patients following percutaneous coronary intervention (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.46-0.87), but not after cardiac surgery (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.82-1.06). There was no difference for changes in the incidence of renal replacement therapy, estimated glomerular filtration rate or serum creatinine. CONCLUSIONS: RIC might be beneficial for the prevention of investigator-defined AKI; however, the effect is likely small. Moreover, due to lack of an effect on use of renal replacement therapy, estimated glomerular filtration rate, RIFLE, AKIN, or KDIGO-defined AKI, and serum creatinine, the evidence for RIC is not robust. Finally, recent large-scale RCTs of RIC focusing on patient-centered outcomes do not support the wider application of RIC.
URI: http://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/16900
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.01.026
ORCID: 0000-0002-1650-8939
PubMed URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26936039
Type: Journal Article
Subjects: Acute kidney injury
Kidney
Meta-analysis
Remote ischemic preconditioning
Renal replacement therapy
Appears in Collections:Journal articles

Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.