Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Original article
Remote ischaemic postconditioning: does it protect against ischaemic damage in percutaneous coronary revascularisation? Randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial
  1. Fernando Carrasco-Chinchilla1,
  2. Antonio J Muñoz-García1,
  3. Antonio Domínguez-Franco1,
  4. Gloria Millán-Vázquez1,
  5. Alicia Guerrero-Molina1,
  6. Carmen Ortiz-García1,
  7. Alfredo Enguix-Armada1,
  8. Juan H Alonso-Briales1,
  9. Jose M Hernández-García1,
  10. Eduardo de Teresa-Galván1,2,
  11. Manuel F Jiménez-Navarro1,2
  1. 1Área del Corazón del Hospital Clínico Universitario Virgen de la Victoria, Fundación IMABIS, RECAVA, Málaga, Spain
  2. 2Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Málaga, Málaga, Spain
  1. Correspondence to Dr Manuel Francisco Jiménez-Navarro, Servicio Cardiología Hospital Clínico Universitario Virgen de la Victoria, Campus Universitario Teatinos s/n., Málaga 29010, Spain; jimeneznavarro{at}


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. (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.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.