Literature DB >> 22517646

Remote ischemic preconditioning immediately before percutaneous coronary intervention does not impact myocardial necrosis, inflammatory response, and circulating endothelial progenitor cell counts: a single center randomized sham controlled trial.

Abhiram Prasad1, Mario Gössl, John Hoyt, Ryan J Lennon, Lynn Polk, Robert Simari, David R Holmes, Charanjit S Rihal, Amir Lerman.   

Abstract

AIMS: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is frequently accompanied by myocardial injury. The present study was performed to determine whether remote ischemic preconditioning (IP) induces cardioprotection during PCI.
METHODS: We enrolled 95 patients requiring nonemergency PCI for stable disease or unstable angina into this prospective clinical trial. Patients were randomized to either remote IP (induced by three 3-min cycles of blood pressure cuff inflations to 200 mm Hg around the upper arm, followed by 3-min of reperfusion n = 47) or sham control (n = 48) immediately preceding PCI. The primary outcome measure was the frequency of post-PCI myonecrosis, defined as a peak postprocedural cTnT T ≥ 0.03 ng/dL. Secondary outcome measures were the change in plasma high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) levels following PCI and in endothelial progenitor cells (EPC) counts following IP.
RESULTS: There was no difference in the primary endpoint of the frequency of PCI related myonecrosis which occurred in 22 (47%) and 19 (40%) patients in the remote IP and control groups, respectively, P = 0.42. There was significant increase in hsCRP post-PCI in both groups (P < 0.001), but there was no difference between the groups (median %change in hsCRP 46% vs. 54%, P = 0.73). There was no significant change in circulating early (CD34 -/CD133+/KDR+), intermediate (CD34+/CD133+/KDR+), or late (CD34+/CD133-/KDR+) EPC in the two groups immediately following IP. The composite rate of death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization at 1 year was 14.1% versus 13.7% (P = 0.90).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that remote IP immediately before PCI does not induce cardioprotection in low to moderate risk patients.
Copyright © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22517646     DOI: 10.1002/ccd.24443

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv        ISSN: 1522-1946            Impact factor:   2.692


  23 in total

Review 1.  Remote ischaemic conditioning-therapeutic opportunities in renal medicine.

Authors:  Lisa E Crowley; Christopher W McIntyre
Journal:  Nat Rev Nephrol       Date:  2013-11-05       Impact factor: 28.314

Review 2.  Cardioprotection by remote ischemic conditioning: Mechanisms and clinical evidences.

Authors:  Alberto Aimo; Chiara Borrelli; Alberto Giannoni; Luigi Emilio Pastormerlo; Andrea Barison; Gianluca Mirizzi; Michele Emdin; Claudio Passino
Journal:  World J Cardiol       Date:  2015-10-26

Review 3.  Remote ischemic conditioning.

Authors:  Gerd Heusch; Hans Erik Bøtker; Karin Przyklenk; Andrew Redington; Derek Yellon
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2015-01-20       Impact factor: 24.094

Review 4.  Biomarkers for ischemic preconditioning: finding the responders.

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

5.  Plasma from human volunteers subjected to remote ischemic preconditioning protects human endothelial cells from hypoxia-induced cell damage.

Authors:  Nina C Weber; Isabelle Riedemann; Kirsten F Smit; Karina Zitta; Djai van de Vondervoort; Coert J Zuurbier; Markus W Hollmann; Benedikt Preckel; Martin Albrecht
Journal:  Basic Res Cardiol       Date:  2015-02-26       Impact factor: 17.165

6.  Remote ischemic preconditioning reduces perioperative cardiac and renal events in patients undergoing elective coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of 11 randomized trials.

Authors:  Hanjun Pei; Yongjian Wu; Yingjie Wei; Yuejin Yang; Siyong Teng; Haitao Zhang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-12-31       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 7.  Ischaemic conditioning and reperfusion injury.

Authors:  Derek J Hausenloy; Derek M Yellon
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2016-02-04       Impact factor: 32.419

8.  Prognostically relevant periprocedural myocardial injury and infarction associated with percutaneous coronary interventions: a Consensus Document of the ESC Working Group on Cellular Biology of the Heart and European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI).

Authors:  Heerajnarain Bulluck; Valeria Paradies; Emanuele Barbato; Andreas Baumbach; Hans Erik Bøtker; Davide Capodanno; Raffaele De Caterina; Claudio Cavallini; Sean M Davidson; Dmitriy N Feldman; Péter Ferdinandy; Sebastiano Gili; Mariann Gyöngyösi; Vijay Kunadian; Sze-Yuan Ooi; Rosalinda Madonna; Michael Marber; Roxana Mehran; Gjin Ndrepepa; Cinzia Perrino; Stefanie Schüpke; Johanne Silvain; Joost P G Sluijter; Giuseppe Tarantini; Gabor G Toth; Linda W Van Laake; Clemens von Birgelen; Michel Zeitouni; Allan S Jaffe; Kristian Thygesen; Derek J Hausenloy
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2021-07-15       Impact factor: 29.983

Review 9.  Neural mechanisms of cardioprotection.

Authors:  Andrey Gourine; Alexander V Gourine
Journal:  Physiology (Bethesda)       Date:  2014-03

10.  Remote ischaemic conditioning in percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of randomised trials.

Authors:  Xiaowei Niu; Jingjing Zhang; De Chen; Guozhen Wan; Yiming Zhang; Yali Yao
Journal:  Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej       Date:  2014-11-17       Impact factor: 1.426

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.