We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
REVIEW
Impact of cyclosporine A use in the prevention of reperfusion injury in acute myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis.
Cardiology Journal 2017
BACKGROUND: Reperfusion injury is an important limiting factor associated with revascularization in acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Various therapies have been tried in an attempt to prevent reperfusion injury, but the search has been elusive. The role of cyclosporine A (CsA) in the prevention of reperfusion injury in AMI is still not clear. The objective of this study was to find out whether CsA is beneficial in reducing reperfusion injury in acute ST elevation myocardial infarction.
METHODS: We performed a systematic search of Pubmed, Scopus, clinicaltrial.gov, and Cochrane Database for randomized control trials (RCT) measuring the effect of CsA in AMI compared to a placebo. The Mantel-Haenszel method and random effect model were used to analyze the data. A total of 1,566 patients (776 in the CsA group and 790 in the placebo group), who participated in 5 RCTs were included in our meta-analysis.
RESULTS: We did not find any significant differences between the CsA and placebo groups in terms of all-cause death (odds ratio [OR] 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78-1.87) and cardiovascular death (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.66-2.49). Similarly, we did not find any significant differences in terms of cardiogenic shock, recurrent ischemia and myocardial infarction, heart failure and echocardiographic outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Cyclosporine A is not helpful in preventing reperfusion injury in AMI.
METHODS: We performed a systematic search of Pubmed, Scopus, clinicaltrial.gov, and Cochrane Database for randomized control trials (RCT) measuring the effect of CsA in AMI compared to a placebo. The Mantel-Haenszel method and random effect model were used to analyze the data. A total of 1,566 patients (776 in the CsA group and 790 in the placebo group), who participated in 5 RCTs were included in our meta-analysis.
RESULTS: We did not find any significant differences between the CsA and placebo groups in terms of all-cause death (odds ratio [OR] 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78-1.87) and cardiovascular death (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.66-2.49). Similarly, we did not find any significant differences in terms of cardiogenic shock, recurrent ischemia and myocardial infarction, heart failure and echocardiographic outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Cyclosporine A is not helpful in preventing reperfusion injury in AMI.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app