These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Remote ischaemic postconditioning: does it protect against ischaemic damage in percutaneous coronary revascularisation? Randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial.
    Author: Carrasco-Chinchilla F, Muñoz-García AJ, Domínguez-Franco A, Millán-Vázquez G, Guerrero-Molina A, Ortiz-García C, Enguix-Armada A, Alonso-Briales JH, Hernández-García JM, de Teresa-Galván E, Jiménez-Navarro MF.
    Journal: Heart; 2013 Oct; 99(19):1431-7. PubMed ID: 23850844.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: Determine whether remote ischaemic postconditioning (RIP) protects against percutaneous coronary intervention-related myocardial infarction (PCI-MI). DESIGN: Single-centre, randomised, blinded to the researchers, clinical trial. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT 01113008). SETTING: Tertiary hospital centre. PATIENTS: 232 patients underwent elective PCI for stable or unstable angina. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised to RIP (induction of three 5-min cycles of ischaemia in the arm after the PCI) versus placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the peak 24-h troponin I level. PCI-MI was defined by an elevation of troponin values >3 or >5 of the 99th percentile according to the classical or the new definition. The secondary outcome measure was hospital admission, PCI for stable angina or acute coronary syndrome and mortality after 1 year of follow-up. The use of RIP in diabetic patients was specifically studied. RESULTS: The mean age was 64.6 years, and 42% were diabetic. The peak troponin in the RIP patients was 0.476 vs 0.478 ng/mL (p=0.99). PCI-MI occurred in 36% of the RIP patients versus 30.8% in the placebo group (p=0.378). Diabetic RIP patients had more PCI-MI (new definition): OR 2.7; 95% CI 1.10 to 6.92; p=0.027. The secondary outcome measure was seen in 11.7% of the RIP patients versus 10.8% in the placebo group (p=0.907). CONCLUSIONS: RIP did not reduce the damage associated with elective PCI or cardiovascular events during the follow-up. The diabetic population who underwent RIP had more PCI-MI.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]