Question · asked by 1 review

Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) vs no RIPC: Composite endpoint (including all‐cause mortality, non‐fatal myocardial infarction and/or any new stroke assessed at 30 days after surgery)

RIPC showed no clear difference in composite endpoint (including all‐cause mortality, non‐fatal… compared with no RIPC (moderate certainty).

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
RIPC vs no RIPC
Composite endpoint (including all‐cause mortality, non‐fatal myocardial infarction and/or any new stroke assessed at 30 days after surgery) · people undergoing CABG (with or without valve surgery)
RIPC showed no clear difference in composite endpoint (including all‐cause mortality, non‐fatal… compared with no RIPC (moderate certainty).
Remote ischaemic preconditioning for coronary artery bypass grafting (with or without valve surgery) (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.99 [0.78, 1.25]2 studies · 2463 participantsModerate

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Remote ischaemic preconditioning for coronary artery bypass grafting (with or without valve surgery)
2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
Not reportedlist not extracted yetNot assessed

Studies behind the findings

None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.

How reviews are matched to this question

Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.