Key result
Remote ischemic conditioning boosts dynamic cerebral autoregulation phase difference ~12 degrees vs sham.
Why the study?
Impaired dynamic cerebral autoregulation (dCA) contributes to cerebral perfusion instability in patients with cerebrovascular atherosclerosis, and the acute effects of remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) on dCA in this population remain unclear.
Does a single session of remote ischemic conditioning improve dynamic cerebral autoregulation (affected-side phase difference at 6–9 h) compared to sham-RIC in patients with intracranial and/or extracranial atherosclerotic stenosis?
RCT (n=140)
sham-controlled
randomized
Does a single session of remote ischemic conditioning improve dynamic cerebral autoregulation (affected-side phase difference at 6–9 h) compared to sham-RIC in patients with intracranial and/or extracranial atherosclerotic stenosis?
A single session of remote ischemic conditioning rapidly improves impaired dynamic cerebral autoregulation in patients with intracranial or extracranial atherosclerotic stenosis.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports acute RIC use in cerebrovascular atherosclerosis management; extends neuroprotective data to measurable autoregulation effects.
Impaired dynamic cerebral autoregulation (dCA) contributes to cerebral perfusion instability in patients with cerebrovascular atherosclerosis. Remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) has shown neuroprotective potential; however, its acute effects on dCA in this population remain unclear. In this randomized, sham‐controlled trial, patients with intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis (ICAS) and/or extracranial atherosclerotic stenosis (ECAS) received a single session of RIC or sham‐RIC. dCA was assessed at baseline and at 0–1, 6–9, and 24 h using transfer function analysis. The prespecified primary endpoint was the affected‐side phase difference (PD) at 6–9 h. Of the 140 randomized participants, 132 with valid primary endpoint data were included in the primary analysis. For the primary outcome, the affected‐side PD at 6–9 h was significantly greater in the RIC group than in the sham‐RIC group (adjusted β = 12.166, 95% CI: 6.787–17.545; p < 0.001). Secondary analyses at other time points and of the unaffected side supported an acute physiological effect of RIC on dCA. These findings suggest that a single RIC session may rapidly improve impaired dCA in patients with ICAS and/or ECAS. Larger studies are needed to determine whether this response varies across clinical presentations and vascular territories.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fu et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis (ICAS) and/or extracranial atherosclerotic stenosis (ECAS) (n=140). Remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) vs. Sham-RIC was evaluated on Affected-side phase difference (PD) of dynamic cerebral autoregulation at 6–9 h (adjusted β = 12.166, 95% CI 6.787–17.545, p=<0.001). A single session of remote ischemic conditioning significantly increased affected-side phase difference at 6–9 h vs sham-RIC (adjusted β = 12.166, 95% CI: 6.787–17.545; p < 0.001).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: