open access
Impact of cyclosporine A use in the prevention of reperfusion injury in acute myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis
open access
Abstract
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.
Abstract
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.
Keywords
myocardial infarction, reperfusion injury, cyclosporine A, mitochondrial permeability transition pore protein
About this articleTitle
Impact of cyclosporine A use in the prevention of reperfusion injury in acute myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis
Journal
Issue
Pages
43-50
Published online
2016-10-11
Page views
2522
Article views/downloads
2022
DOI
Pubmed
Bibliographic record
Cardiol J 2017;24(1):43-50.
Keywords
myocardial infarction
reperfusion injury
cyclosporine A
mitochondrial permeability transition pore protein
Authors
Sunil Upadhaya
Seetharamprasad Madala
Ramkaji Baniya
Suresh Kumar Subedi
Kalyan Saginala
Ghassan Bachuwa
