@article{RahimiBhalaKamphuisenetal.2012,
  author    = {Rahimi, Kazem and Bhala, Neeraj and Kamphuisen, Pieter and Emberson, Jonathan and Biere-Rafi, Sara and Krane, Vera and Robertson, Michele and Wikstrand, John and McMurray, John},
  title     = {Effect of Statins on Venous Thromboembolic Events: A Meta-analysis of Published and Unpublished Evidence from Randomised Controlled Trials},
  series = {PLoS Medicine},
  volume    = {9},
  journal   = {PLoS Medicine},
  number    = {9},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pmed.1001310},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-134279},
  pages     = {e1001310},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {Background: It has been suggested that statins substantially reduce the risk of venous thromboembolic events. We sought to test this hypothesis by performing a meta-analysis of both published and unpublished results from randomised trials of statins. Methods and Findings: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL up to March 2012 for randomised controlled trials comparing statin with no statin, or comparing high dose versus standard dose statin, with 100 or more randomised participants and at least 6 months' follow-up. Investigators were contacted for unpublished information about venous thromboembolic events during follow-up. Twenty-two trials of statin versus control (105,759 participants) and seven trials of an intensive versus a standard dose statin regimen (40,594 participants) were included. In trials of statin versus control, allocation to statin therapy did not significantly reduce the risk of venous thromboembolic events (465 [0.9\%] statin versus 521 [1.0\%] control, odds ratio [OR] = 0.89, 95\% CI 0.78-1.01, p = 0.08) with no evidence of heterogeneity between effects on deep vein thrombosis (266 versus 311, OR 0.85, 95\% CI 0.72-1.01) and effects on pulmonary embolism (205 versus 222, OR 0.92, 95\% CI 0.76-1.12). Exclusion of the trial result that provided the motivation for our meta-analysis (JUPITER) had little impact on the findings for venous thromboembolic events (431 [0.9\%] versus 461 [1.0\%], OR = 0.93 [95\% CI 0.82-1.07], p = 0.32 among the other 21 trials). There was no evidence that higher dose statin therapy reduced the risk of venous thromboembolic events compared with standard dose statin therapy (198 [1.0\%] versus 202 [1.0\%], OR = 0.98, 95\% CI 0.80-1.20, p = 0.87). Risk of bias overall was small but a certain degree of effect underestimation due to random error cannot be ruled out. Conclusions: The findings from this meta-analysis do not support the previous suggestion of a large protective effect of statins (or higher dose statins) on venous thromboembolic events. However, a more moderate reduction in risk up to about one-fifth cannot be ruled out. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.},
  language  = {en}
}
@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}
}