Search

Metformin improves cardiovascular prognosis in patients with diabetes mellitus, compared to alternative glucose-lowering drugs, despite similar glycemic control. Direct cardiovascular protective properties have therefore been proposed, and studied in preclinical models of myocardial infarction. We now aim to critically assess the quality and outcome of these studies. We present a systematic review, quality assessment and meta-analysis of the effect of metformin in animal studies of experimental myocardial infarction. Through a comprehensive search in Pubmed and EMBASE, we identified 27 studies, 11 reporting on ex vivo experiments and 18 reporting on in vivo experiments. The primary endpoint infarct size as percentage of area at risk was significantly reduced by metformin in vivo (MD -18.11[-24.09,-12.14]) and ex vivo (MD -18.70[-25.39, -12.02]). Metformin improved the secondary endpoints left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left ventricular end systolic diameter. A borderline significant effect on mortality was observed, and there was no overall effect on cardiac hypertrophy. Subgroup analyses could be performed for comorbidity and timing of treatment (infarct size and mortality) and species and duration of ischemia (LVEF), but none of these variables accounted for significant amounts of heterogeneity. Reporting of possible sources of bias was extremely poor, including randomization (reported in 63%), blinding (33%), and sample size calculation (0%). As a result, risk of bias (assessed using SYRCLE's risk of bias tool) was unclear in the vast majority of studies. We conclude that metformin limits infarct-size and improves cardiac function in animal models of myocardial infarction, but our confidence in the evidence is lowered by the unclear risk of bias and residual unexplained heterogeneity. We recommend an adequately powered, high quality confirmatory animal study to precede a randomized controlled trial of acute administration of metformin in patients undergoing reperfusion for acute myocardial infarction.

Background: Ischemic preconditioning (IPC) of the heart is a protective strategy in which a brief ischemic stimulus immediately before a lethal ischemic episode potently limits infarct size. Although very promising in animal models of myocardial infarction, IPC has not yet been successfully translated to benefit for patients., Objective: To appraise all preclinical evidence on IPC for myocardial infarction and identify factors hampering translation., Methods and Results: Using systematic review and meta-analysis, we identified 503 animal studies reporting infarct size data from 785 comparisons between IPC-treated and control animals. Overall, IPC reduced myocardial infarction by 24.6% [95%CI 23.5, 25.6]. Subgroup analysis showed that IPC efficacy was reduced in comorbid animals and non-rodents. Efficacy was highest in studies using 2-3 IPC cycles applied <45 minutes before myocardial infarction. Local and remote IPC were equally effective. Reporting of study quality indicators was low: randomization, blinding and a sample size calculation were reported in 49%, 11% and 2% of publications, respectively., Conclusions: Translation of IPC to the clinical setting may be hampered by the observed differences between the animals used in preclinical IPC studies and the patient population, regarding comorbidity, sex and age. Furthermore, the IPC protocols currently used in clinical trials could be optimized in terms of timing and the number of ischemic cycles applied. In order to inform future clinical trials successfully, future preclinical studies on IPC should aim to maximize both internal and external validity, since poor methodological quality may limit the value of the preclinical evidence.

Aims: To compare the effectiveness of allopurinol with no treatment or placebo for the prevention of cardiovascular events in hyperuricemic patients. Methods and results: Pubmed, Web of Science and Cochrane library were searched from inception until July 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies in hyperuricemic patients without significant renal disease and treated with allopurinol, versus placebo or no treatment were included. Outcome measures were cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, or a combined endpoint (CM/MI/S). For RCT's a random effects meta-analysis was performed. For observational studies a narrative synthesis was performed. Of the original 1995 references we ultimately included 26 RCT's and 21 observational studies. We found a significantly reduced risk of combined endpoint (Risk Ratio 0.65 [95% CI] [0.46 to 0.91]; p = 0.012) and myocardial infarction (RR 0.47 [0.27 to 0.80]; p = 0.01) in the allopurinol group compared to controls. We found no significant effect of allopurinol on stroke or cardiovascular mortality. Of the 15 observational studies with sufficient quality, allopurinol was associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality in 1 out of 3 studies that reported this outcome, myocardial infarction in 6 out of 8, stroke in 4 out of 7, and combined end-point in 2 out of 2. Cardiovascular benefit was only observed when allopurinol therapy was prolonged for more than 6 months and when an appropriate allopurinol dose was administered (300 mg or more/day) or sufficient reduction of serum urate concentration was achieved (<0.36 mmol/l). Conclusions: Data from RCT's and observational studies indicate that allopurinol treatment reduces cardiovascular risk in patients with hyperuricemia. However, the quality of evidence from RCTs is low to moderate. To establish whether allopurinol lowers the risk of cardiovascular events a well-designed and adequately powered randomized, placebo-controlled trial is needed in high-risk patients with hyperuricemia. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration CRD42018089744 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]