@article{BrevoordKrankeKuijpersetal.2012,
  author    = {Brevoord, Daniel and Kranke, Peter and Kuijpers, Marijn and Weber, Nina and Hollmann, Markus and Preckel, Benedikt},
  title     = {Remote Ischemic Conditioning to Protect against Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis},
  series = {PLoS One},
  volume    = {7},
  journal   = {PLoS One},
  number    = {7},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0042179},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-134471},
  pages     = {e42179},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {Background: Remote ischemic conditioning is gaining interest as potential method to induce resistance against ischemia reperfusion injury in a variety of clinical settings. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate whether remote ischemic conditioning reduces mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, length of stay in hospital and in the intensive care unit and biomarker release in patients who suffer from or are at risk for ischemia reperfusion injury. Methods and Results: Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized clinical trials comparing remote ischemic conditioning, regardless of timing, with no conditioning. Two investigators independently selected suitable trials, assessed trial quality and extracted data. 23 studies in patients undergoing cardiac surgery (15 studies), percutaneous coronary intervention (four studies) and vascular surgery (four studies), comprising in total 1878 patients, were included in this review. Compared to no conditioning, remote ischemic conditioning did not reduce mortality (odds ratio 1.22 [95\% confidence interval 0.48, 3.07]) or major adverse cardiovascular events (0.65 [0.38, 1.14]). However, the incidence of myocardial infarction was reduced with remote ischemic conditioning (0.50 [0.31, 0.82]), as was peak troponin release (standardized mean difference -0.28 [-0.47, -0.09]). Conclusion: There is no evidence that remote ischemic conditioning reduces mortality associated with ischemic events; nor does it reduce major adverse cardiovascular events. However, remote ischemic conditioning did reduce the incidence of peri-procedural myocardial infarctions, as well as the release of troponin.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{NassWeissbrichHuberetal.2012,
  author    = {Nass, Maximilian and Weissbrich, Benedikt and Huber, Moritz and Schneider, Elisabeth Marion and Weiss, Manfred},
  title     = {BK viremia in critically ill surgical patients with hemorrhagic or septic shock},
  series = {BMC Research Notes},
  volume    = {5},
  journal   = {BMC Research Notes},
  number    = {100},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-124136},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {Background Infections with polyomavirus BK virus (BKV) are a common cause of renal dysfunction after renal transplantation and may also be harmful in surgical patients with shock. The aim of the present study was to determine the frequency of BKV viremia in critically ill surgical patients with septic or hemorrhagic shock, and, if viremia is detectable, whether viremia may be associated with renal dysfunction. Findings A total of 125 plasma samples from 44 critically ill surgical patients with septic or hemorrhagic shock were tested by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for BKV DNA during their stay on the intensive care unit (ICU). BKV viremia occurred in four patients, i.e. in three of the septic and in one of the hemorrhagic shock group. There was no association between viremia and renal dysfunction. All positive samples contained a low viral load (< 500 copies/ml). Conclusions Since BK viremia was rarely found and with low viral load only in critically ill surgical patients with shock, it is very unlikely that BK viremia results in BK nephropathy later on.},
  language  = {en}
}