Key result
Remote ischemic preconditioning before elective PCI shows no benefit over control for MACE.
Why the study?
Does one cycle of remote ischemic preconditioning reduce major cardiovascular events in patients undergoing elective PCI?
RCT (n=102)
Randomized equally into two groups
No
Does one cycle of remote ischemic preconditioning reduce major cardiovascular events in patients undergoing elective PCI?
Absolute Event Rate: 4.4% vs 4.4%
p-value: p=1
This study aims to evaluate the long-term clinical impact of a single cycle of remote ischemic preconditioning prior to elective PCI on major cardiovascular events at one year.
Does not support single-cycle RIPC before elective PCI; leaves open efficacy of alternative protocols in randomized trials.
Introduction: Myocardial injury after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is seen frequently. Ischemia/ reperfusion injury, side branch occlusion and distal embolization of atherothrombotic debris are the main causes of myocardial injury. Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) is a promising technique for protection from ischemia/reperfusion injury, but sufficient data of long-term clinical outcomes is not available. In this study we planned to investigate the effect of one cycle of RIPC on major cardiovascular events one year after elective PCI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yılmaztepe et al. (2018) conducted an RCT in Stable angina pectoris undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (n=102). Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) vs. Control was evaluated on Major cardiovascular events (MACE) at 1 year (p=1). One cycle of remote ischemic preconditioning applied before elective percutaneous coronary intervention had no effect on major cardiovascular events at one year compared to control (4.4% vs 4.4%, p=1).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: