Evidence Hub

Microplegia in cardiac surgery: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Owen CM, Asopa S, Smart NA, King N

Journal of cardiac surgery, 2020

5,798 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Consensus on the optimum choice of cardioplegia remains elusive. One possibility that has been suggested to have beneficial properties is microplegia, a cardioplegia of reduced crystalloid volume. The aim of this meta-analysis is to comprehensively investigate microplegia against a range of clinical outcomes.

METHODS: To identify potential studies, systematic searches were carried out in four databases (eg, Pubmed, EMBASE). The search strategy included the key concepts of "microplegia" OR "mini-cardioplegia" OR "miniplegia" AND "cardiac surgery." This was followed by a meta-analysis investigating: mortality, crystalloid volume; cardiopulmonary bypass time; cross-clamp time; intra-aortic balloon pump use; spontaneous heartbeat recovery; inotropic support; low cardiac output syndrome; myocardial infarction; acute renal failure; atrial fibrillation, reoperation for bleeding; creatine kinase myocardial band (CK-MB); intensive care unit (ICU) time and hospital stay.

RESULTS: Eleven studies comprising 5798 participants were analyzed. Microplegia used a lower volume of crystalloids and led to a higher spontaneous return of heartbeat, odds ratio (OR) 4.271 (95% confidence intervals [CIs]: 1.935, 9.423; I2 = 76.57%; P < .001) and a lower requirement for inotropic support, OR: 0.665 (95% CI: 0.47, 0.941; I2 = 3.53%; P = .021). Microplegia was also associated with a lower CK-MB release, mean difference (MD) -6.448 ng/mL (95% CI: -9.386, -3.511; I2 = 0%; P < .001) and a…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 5,798 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free