Key result
RIPC attenuates acetylcholine-induced coronary vasoconstriction by ~11% vs sham.
Why the study?
Does remote ischaemic preconditioning improve coronary artery endothelial function in patients with stable coronary artery disease?
RCT (n=75)
Single-blind
1:1
No
Does remote ischaemic preconditioning improve coronary artery endothelial function in patients with stable coronary artery disease?
Mean Difference: 11.32 (95% CI 1.2–21.4)
Absolute Event Rate: -2% vs -13.3%
p-value: p=0.032
RIPC attenuates acetylcholine-induced coronary vasoconstriction in stable CAD; extends mechanistic evidence for endothelium-dependent cardioprotection and supports outcome trials.
Background: Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) is a cardioprotective intervention invoking intermittent periods of ischaemia in a tissue or organ remote from the heart. The mechanisms of this effect are incompletely understood. We hypothesised that RIPC might enhance coronary vasodilatation by an endothelium-dependent mechanism. Methods: We performed a prospective, randomised, sham-controlled, blinded clinical trial. Patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing elective invasive management were prospectively enrolled, and randomised to RIPC or sham (1:1) prior to angiography. Endothelial-dependent vasodilator function was assessed in a non-target coronary artery with intracoronary infusion of incremental acetylcholine doses (10 -6 , 10 -5 , 10 -4 mol/l). Venous blood was sampled pre-and post-RIPC or sham, and analysed for circulating markers of endothelial function. Coronary luminal diameter was assessed by quantitative coronary angiography. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the mean percentage change in coronary luminal diameter following the maximal acetylcholine dose (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02666235). Results: 75 patients were enrolled. Following angiography, 60 patients (mean SD age 57.5 8.5 years; 80% male) were eligible and completed the protocol (n = 30 RIPC, n = 30 sham). The mean percentage change in coronary luminal diameter was -13.3 22.3% and -2.0 17.2% in the sham and RIPC groups respectively (difference 11.32%, 95%CI: 1.2-21.4, p = 0.032). This remained significant when age and sex were included as covariates (difference 11.01%, 95%CI: 1.01-21.0, p = 0.035). There were no between-group differences in endothelial-independent vasodilation, ECG parameters or circulating markers of endothelial function. Conclusions: RIPC attenuates the extent of vasoconstriction induced by intracoronary acetylcholine infusion. This endothelium-dependent mechanism may contribute to the cardioprotective effects of RIPC.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Corcoran et al. (2017) conducted an RCT in Stable coronary artery disease (n=75). Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) vs. Sham (cuff placement without inflation) was evaluated on Mean percentage change in coronary luminal diameter following the maximal acetylcholine dose (MD 11.32%, 95% CI 1.2-21.4, p=0.032). Remote ischaemic preconditioning significantly attenuated coronary vasoconstriction induced by acetylcholine compared to sham, with a mean difference in coronary luminal diameter change of 11.32%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: