Why the study?
Does ischemic preconditioning (prodromal angina) improve long-term prognosis in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Does ischemic preconditioning (prodromal angina) improve long-term prognosis in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
While ischemic preconditioning (prodromal angina) before acute myocardial infarction reduces initial infarct size, it is associated with a higher long-term incidence of congestive heart failure and reinfarction.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May not improve long-term outcomes despite smaller infarcts; leaves open prognostic role of ischemic preconditioning in AMI.
Background and Objectives:The brief repetitive periods of ischemia and reperfusion before a myocardial infarction appears to precondition the heart, making it more resistant to subsequent longer periods of ischemia. This phenomenon is known as ischemic preconditioning (IP). We studied the long-term effects of IP in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Subjects and Methods:Between January 1991 and August 1993, we examined, prospectively, 113 consecutive patients who had an acute myocardial infarction and arrived to the hospital within 6 hours after the onset of chest pain. IP was defined as prodromal angina within 24 hours before the myocardial infarction. Patients were divided 2 groups:Non-IP group and IP group. Clinical characteristics, laboratory findings, coronary angiographic findings, cardiac events, and mortality at admission and during follow-up were compared between these two groups. Results:The IP group had 64 patients while the Non-IP group had 49. In terms of risk factors for ischemic heart disease, hypertension was more common in the IP group (p<0.05). Peak serum creatine kinase level of the IP group was 1,387.0±1,255.0 IU/L and that of the Non-IP group was 2,372.7± 2,420.5 IU/L (p<0.05). The time interval between the onset of infarction and peak creatine kinase level was shorter in the IP group than in the Non-IP group (10.6±4.8 hours vs. 7.1±4.6 hours;p<0.05). For cardiac events during the follow-up period, there were more incidences of congestive heart failure and reinfarction in the IP group than in the Non-IP group (p<0.05). Mortality rate did not differ between the two groups. Univariate analysis identified five factors predictive of 3-year mortality:age, sex, coronary angiogram frequency, hypertension, and smoking. However, none of these factors were independently associated with death in the multivariate analysis. Conclusion:Close monitoring for cardiac events may be necessary for patients who have had IP before myocardial infarction as they had a higher incidence for congestive heart failure and reinfarction during the follow-up. (Korean Circulation J 2003;33 (5):374-384)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: