Key result
Remote ischemic preconditioning did not enhance phosphorylated protein signaling in myocardium or circulating leukocytes compared to sham control in children undergoing Tetralogy of Fallot repair.
Why the study?
Does remote ischemic preconditioning improve phosphorylated protein signaling in children undergoing Tetralogy of Fallot repair?
RCT (n=40)
Double-blind
randomized
Does remote ischemic preconditioning improve phosphorylated protein signaling in children undergoing Tetralogy of Fallot repair?
Remote ischemic preconditioning does not further enhance phosphorylated protein signaling in children undergoing Tetralogy of Fallot repair, likely because a high proportion of proteins are already phosphorylated in cyanotic heart disease.
RIPC offers no signaling benefit in TOF repair; challenges mechanistic rationale for its use in cyanotic CHD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pepe et al. (2013) conducted an RCT in Tetralogy of Fallot (n=40). Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) vs. Sham RIPC was evaluated on Increase in the ratio of phosphorylated to total protein for intracellular signaling proteins and markers of necrosis, apoptosis, and autophagy. Remote ischemic preconditioning did not enhance phosphorylated protein signaling in myocardium or circulating leukocytes compared to sham control in children undergoing Tetralogy of Fallot repair.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: