INTRODUCTION:Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) may limit myocardial infarction by improving microvascular function and maintaining myocardial blood flow. We hypothesized that a RIPC stimulus would reduce coronary microvascular resistance and improve coronary blood flow during elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHOD: We prospectively recruited 54 patients with multi-vessel disease (MVD = 32) or single vessel disease awaiting elective PCI. Patients with MVD hadnon-target vessel (NTV) index of micro-circulatory resistance (IMR) determined, before and after target vessel (TV) PCI (cardiac RIPC). The effect of arm RIPC on serial microvascular resistance (R(p)) was assessed in patients with single vessel disease. RESULTS:TV balloon occlusion did not alter the NTV IMR: 16.5 (12.4) baseline vs. 17.6 (11.6) post cardiac RIPC, P = 0.65 or hyperaemic transit time. Arm RIPC did not alter R( p) in patients with single vessel disease: Rp, mmHg.cm(-1).s( -1): 3.5 (1.9) baseline vs. 4.1 (3.0) post arm RIPC, P = 0.19 and coronary flow velocity remained constant. CONCLUSION: RIPC stimuli during elective PCI do not affect coronary microvascular resistance or coronary flow in humans.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) may limit myocardial infarction by improving microvascular function and maintaining myocardial blood flow. We hypothesized that a RIPC stimulus would reduce coronary microvascular resistance and improve coronary blood flow during elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHOD: We prospectively recruited 54 patients with multi-vessel disease (MVD = 32) or single vessel disease awaiting elective PCI. Patients with MVD had non-target vessel (NTV) index of micro-circulatory resistance (IMR) determined, before and after target vessel (TV) PCI (cardiac RIPC). The effect of arm RIPC on serial microvascular resistance (R(p)) was assessed in patients with single vessel disease. RESULTS: TV balloon occlusion did not alter the NTV IMR: 16.5 (12.4) baseline vs. 17.6 (11.6) post cardiac RIPC, P = 0.65 or hyperaemic transit time. Arm RIPC did not alter R( p) in patients with single vessel disease: Rp, mmHg.cm(-1).s( -1): 3.5 (1.9) baseline vs. 4.1 (3.0) post arm RIPC, P = 0.19 and coronary flow velocity remained constant. CONCLUSION: RIPC stimuli during elective PCI do not affect coronary microvascular resistance or coronary flow in humans.
Authors: Sebastian Koch; David Della-Morte; Kunjan R Dave; Ralph L Sacco; Miguel A Perez-Pinzon Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2014-03-19 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Robert Kraemer; Johan Lorenzen; Mohammad Kabbani; Christian Herold; Marc Busche; Peter M Vogt; Karsten Knobloch Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2011-11-23 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Kasper Pryds; Morten Bøttcher; Astrid Drivsholm Sloth; Kim Munk; Michael Rahbek Schmidt; Hans Erik Bøtker Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-11-24 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: D Corcoran; R Young; P Cialdella; P McCartney; A Bajrangee; B Hennigan; D Collison; D Carrick; A Shaukat; R Good; S Watkins; M McEntegart; J Watt; P Welsh; N Sattar; A McConnachie; K G Oldroyd; C Berry Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 4.164