In this section
@article{Liang:2022:10.1016/j.bja.2022.04.016,
author = {Liang, M and Ahmad, F and Dickinson, R},
doi = {10.1016/j.bja.2022.04.016},
journal = {British Journal of Anaesthesia},
pages = {200--218},
title = {A preclinical systematic review and meta-analysis of the noble gases argon and xenon as treatments for acquired brain injury},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2022.04.016},
volume = {129},
year = {2022}
}
TY - JOUR
AB - BackgroundThe noble gases argon and xenon are potential novel neuroprotective treatments for acquired brain injuries. Xenon has already undergone early-stage clinical trials in the treatment of ischaemic brain injuries, with mixed results. Argon has yet to progress to clinical trials as a treatment for brain injury. Here, we aim to synthesise the results of preclinical studies evaluating argon and xenon as neuroprotective therapies for brain injuries.MethodsAfter a systematic review of the MEDLINE and Embase databases, we carried out a pairwise and stratified meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was examined by subgroup analysis, funnel plot asymmetry, and Egger's regression.ResultsA total of 32 studies were identified, 14 for argon and 18 for xenon, involving measurements from 1384 animals, including murine, rat, and porcine models. Brain injury models included ischaemic brain injury after cardiac arrest (CA), neurological injury after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), traumatic brain injury (TBI), and ischaemic stroke. Both argon and xenon had significant (P<0.001), positive neuroprotective effect sizes. The overall effect size for argon (CA, TBI, stroke) was 18.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.1–28.1%), and for xenon (CA, TBI, stroke) was 34.1% (95% CI, 24.7–43.6%). Including the CPB model, only present for xenon, the xenon effect size (CPB, CA, TBI, stroke) was 27.4% (95% CI, 11.5–43.3%). Xenon, both with and without the CPB model, was significantly (P<0.001) more protective than argon.ConclusionsThese findings provide evidence to support the use of xenon and argon as neuroprotective treatments for acquired brain injuries. Current evidence suggests that xenon is more efficacious than argon overall.
AU - Liang,M
AU - Ahmad,F
AU - Dickinson,R
DO - 10.1016/j.bja.2022.04.016
EP - 218
PY - 2022///
SN - 0007-0912
SP - 200
TI - A preclinical systematic review and meta-analysis of the noble gases argon and xenon as treatments for acquired brain injury
T2 - British Journal of Anaesthesia
UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2022.04.016
UR - https://www.bjanaesthesia.org/article/S0007-0912(22)00198-2/fulltext
UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/97064
VL - 129
ER -