RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Remote ischaemic postconditioning: does it protect against ischaemic damage in percutaneous coronary revascularisation? Randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial
JF Heart
JO Heart
FD BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and British Cardiovascular Society
SP 1431
OP 1437
DO 10.1136/heartjnl-2013-304172
VO 99
IS 19
A1 Fernando Carrasco-Chinchilla
A1 Antonio J Muñoz-García
A1 Antonio Domínguez-Franco
A1 Gloria Millán-Vázquez
A1 Alicia Guerrero-Molina
A1 Carmen Ortiz-García
A1 Alfredo Enguix-Armada
A1 Juan H Alonso-Briales
A1 Jose M Hernández-García
A1 Eduardo de Teresa-Galván
A1 Manuel F Jiménez-Navarro
YR 2013
UL http://heart.bmj.com/content/99/19/1431.abstract
AB 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.