» Articles » PMID: 20837926

Remote Ischemic Preconditioning in Human Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: from Promise to Disappointment?

Overview
Journal Circulation
Date 2010 Sep 15
PMID 20837926
Citations 91
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: We assessed whether remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) improves myocardial, renal, and lung protection after on-pump coronary surgery.

Methods And Results: This was a single-center, prospective, randomized (1:1), placebo-controlled trial. Patients, investigators, anesthetists, surgeons, and critical care teams were blinded to group allocation. Subjects received RIPC (or placebo) stimuli (×3 upper limb (or dummy arm), 5-minute cycles of 200 mm Hg cuff inflation/deflation) before aortic clamping. Anesthesia, perfusion, cardioplegia, and surgical techniques were standardized. The primary end point was 48-hour area under the curve (AUC) troponin T (cTnT) release. Secondary end points were 6-hour and peak cTnT, ECG changes, cardiac index, inotrope and vasoconstrictor use, renal dysfunction, and lung injury. Hospital survival was 99.4%. Comparing placebo and RIPC, median (interquartile range) AUC 48-hour cTnT (ng/mL(-1)/48 h(-1)); 28 (19, 39) versus 30 (22, 38), 6-hour cTnT (ng/mL(-1)); 0.93(0.59, 1.35) versus 1.01(0.72, 1.43), peak cTnT (ng/mL(-1)); 1.02 (0.74, 1.44) versus 1.04 (0.78, 1.51), de novo left bundle-branch block (4% versus 0%) and Q waves (5.3% versus 5.5%), serial cardiac indices, intraaortic balloon pump usage (8.5% versus 7.5%), inotrope (39% versus 50%) and vasoconstrictor usage (66% versus 64%) were not different. Dialysis requirement (1.2% versus 3.8%), peak creatinine (median [interquartile range], 1.2 mg/dL(-1) (1.1, 1.4) versus 1.2 (1.0, 1.4)), and AUC urinary albumin-creatinine ratios 69 (40, 112) versus 58 (32, 85) were not different. Intubation times; median (interquartile range), 937 minutes(766, 1402) versus 895(675, 1180), 6-hour; 278 (210, 338) versus 270 (218, 323) and 12-hour pO(2):FiO(2) ratios 255 (195, 323) versus 263 (210, 308) were similar.

Conclusions: In contrast to prior smaller studies, RIPC did not reduce troponin release, improve hemodynamics, or enhance renal or lung protection. Clinical Trial Registration-URL: http://www.ukcrn.org.uk. Unique identifier: 4659.

Citing Articles

Cardiopulmonary Protection of Modified Remote Ischemic Preconditioning in Mitral Valve Replacement Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Zhang L, Zhou K, Gu T, Xu J, Shi M, Zhu J Cardiovasc Ther. 2025; 2024:9889995.

PMID: 39742012 PMC: 11221996. DOI: 10.1155/2024/9889995.


Protective Effect of Remote Ischemic Preconditioning against Myocardial Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury in Rats and Mice: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Chen L, Weng Y, Qing A, Li J, Yang P, Ye L Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2024; 23(12):413.

PMID: 39076668 PMC: 11270448. DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm2312413.


Myocardial protection in cardiac surgery: a comprehensive review of current therapies and future cardioprotective strategies.

Chiari P, Fellahi J Front Med (Lausanne). 2024; 11:1424188.

PMID: 38962735 PMC: 11220133. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1424188.


Bilateral remote ischemic conditioning in children: A two-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial in young children undergoing cardiac surgery.

Drury N, Van Doorn C, Woolley R, Amos-Hirst R, Bi R, Spencer C JTCVS Open. 2024; 18:193-208.

PMID: 38690427 PMC: 11056492. DOI: 10.1016/j.xjon.2024.02.018.


Effect of remote ischemic preconditioning on lung function after surgery under general anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Kashiwagi S, Mihara T, Yokoi A, Yokoyama C, Nakajima D, Goto T Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):17720.

PMID: 37853024 PMC: 10584824. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-44833-w.