You are here

  • Home
  • Online First
  • Effects of remote ischaemic preconditioning on clinical outcomes after cardiac surgery

Article Text

Article menu

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Correspondence
Effects of remote ischaemic preconditioning on clinical outcomes after cardiac surgery
  1. Fu Shan Xue,
  2. Rui Ping Li,
  3. Xin Long Cui
  1. Department of Anesthesiology, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China
  1. Correspondence to Professor Fu Shan Xue, Department of Anesthesiology, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 33 Ba-Da-Chu Road, Shi-Jing-Shan District, Beijing 100144, People's Republic of China; xuefushan{at}aliyun.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2015-307646

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    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.

    To the Editor,

    In a recent article of Candilio et al1 assessing the effect of remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, they showed that RIPC reduced the amount of perioperative myocardial injury by 26% and the incidence of acute kidney injury by 48%. They should be applauded for trying to control most of the risk factors affecting postoperative myocardial and kidney injury. However, to differentiate the effects of one factor on study endpoints, all other factors have to be standardised. In this study, several …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors FSX read the manuscript of Candilio et al.; analysed their methods and data; suggested comment points and drafted this manuscript; responsible for this manuscript; and approved the final manuscript. RPL read the paper of Candilio et al.; analysed their data; revised the comment points and this manuscript; and approved the final manuscript. XLC read the manuscript of Candilio et al.; analysed their methods and data; revised the comment points and this manuscript; and approved the final manuscript.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles