We have located links that may give you full text access.
Remote ischaemic conditioning for myocardial infarction or elective PCI: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised trials.
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of remote ischaemic conditioning in clinical trials of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or elective percutaneous coronary intervention is controversial. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse whether remote ischaemic conditioning reduces myocardial damage in those patients.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science from inception until December 2017 for randomised clinical trials evaluating remote ischaemic conditioning versus a control group. Two independent reviewers extracted data of 23 trials (2118 patients with STEMI; 2048 patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention) which were meta-analysed using random-effects models.
RESULTS: Remote ischaemic conditioning reduced infarct size in STEMI patients when assessed by imaging (mean difference of infarct size as percentage of left ventricle -2.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.37 to -0.48; P=0.01; I2 =44%; n=925) or biomarkers related to myocardial injury (peak values of cardiac biomarker release reported as standardised mean difference -0.19, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.02; P=0.03; I2 =58%; n=1483) and increased myocardial salvage index (mean difference 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.13; P=0.02; I2 =49%; n= 636). Left ventricular ejection fraction was increased when assessed during the first days after STEMI (mean difference 1.53, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.83; P=0.02; I2 =28%; n=1192). Remote ischaemic conditioning had no influence on biomarker values after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (standardised mean difference 0.06, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.30; P=0.59).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite a statistically significant reduction of myocardial damage in STEMI patients, the magnitude of the reduction was small and a significant impact on clinical events is unlikely. With respect to elective percutaneous coronary intervention, remote ischaemic conditioning had no influence on myocardial injury and its use is not supported by our analysis.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science from inception until December 2017 for randomised clinical trials evaluating remote ischaemic conditioning versus a control group. Two independent reviewers extracted data of 23 trials (2118 patients with STEMI; 2048 patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention) which were meta-analysed using random-effects models.
RESULTS: Remote ischaemic conditioning reduced infarct size in STEMI patients when assessed by imaging (mean difference of infarct size as percentage of left ventricle -2.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.37 to -0.48; P=0.01; I2 =44%; n=925) or biomarkers related to myocardial injury (peak values of cardiac biomarker release reported as standardised mean difference -0.19, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.02; P=0.03; I2 =58%; n=1483) and increased myocardial salvage index (mean difference 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.13; P=0.02; I2 =49%; n= 636). Left ventricular ejection fraction was increased when assessed during the first days after STEMI (mean difference 1.53, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.83; P=0.02; I2 =28%; n=1192). Remote ischaemic conditioning had no influence on biomarker values after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (standardised mean difference 0.06, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.30; P=0.59).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite a statistically significant reduction of myocardial damage in STEMI patients, the magnitude of the reduction was small and a significant impact on clinical events is unlikely. With respect to elective percutaneous coronary intervention, remote ischaemic conditioning had no influence on myocardial injury and its use is not supported by our analysis.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app