The efficacy of remote ischaemic conditioning in clinical trials of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or elective percutaneous coronary intervention is controversial. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse whether remote ischaemic conditioning reduces myocardial damage in those patients.
Methods:
We searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science from inception until December 2017 for randomised clinical trials evaluating remote ischaemic conditioning versus a control group. Two independent reviewers extracted data of 23 trials (2118 patients with STEMI; 2048 patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention) which were meta-analysed using random-effects models.
Results:
Remote ischaemic conditioning reduced infarct size in STEMI patients when assessed by imaging (mean difference of infarct size as percentage of left ventricle −2.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) –4.37 to −0.48; P=0.01; I2=44%; n=925) or biomarkers related to myocardial injury (peak values of cardiac biomarker release reported as standardised mean difference −0.19, 95% CI −0.37 to −0.02; P=0.03; I2=58%; n=1483) and increased myocardial salvage index (mean difference 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.13; P=0.02; I2=49%; n= 636). Left ventricular ejection fraction was increased when assessed during the first days after STEMI (mean difference 1.53, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.83; P=0.02; I2=28%; n=1192). Remote ischaemic conditioning had no influence on biomarker values after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (standardised mean difference 0.06, 95% CI −0.17 to 0.30; P=0.59).
Conclusions:
Despite a statistically significant reduction of myocardial damage in STEMI patients, the magnitude of the reduction was small and a significant impact on clinical events is unlikely. With respect to elective percutaneous coronary intervention, remote ischaemic conditioning had no influence on myocardial injury and its use is not supported by our analysis.
NicholsMTownsendNScarboroughP, et al. Trends in age-specific coronary heart disease mortality in the European Union over three decades: 1980–2009. Eur Heart J2013; 34: 3017–3027.
2.
LonborgJVejlstrupNKelbaekH, et al. Final infarct size measured by cardiovascular magnetic resonance in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction predicts long-term clinical outcome: an observational study. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imag2013; 14: 387–395.
3.
StegPGJamesSKAtarD, et al. ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J2012; 33: 2569–2619.
4.
BraunwaldEKlonerRA.Myocardial reperfusion: a double-edged sword?J Clin Invest1985; 76: 1713–1719.
5.
HeuschGGershBJ.The pathophysiology of acute myocardial infarction and strategies of protection beyond reperfusion: a continual challenge. Eur Heart J2017; 38: 774–784.
6.
SchmidtMRSmerupMKonstantinovIE, et al. Intermittent peripheral tissue ischemia during coronary ischemia reduces myocardial infarction through a KATP-dependent mechanism: first demonstration of remote ischemic perconditioning. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol2007; 292: H1883–H1890.
7.
WhiteSKFrohlichGMSadoDM, et al. Remote ischemic conditioning reduces myocardial infarct size and edema in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. JACC Cardiovasc Interv2015; 8: 178–188.
8.
VerouhisDSörenssonPGourineA, et al. Effect of remote ischemic conditioning on infarct size in patients with anterior ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Am Heart J2016; 181: 66–73.
9.
BotkerHEKharbandaRSchmidtMR, et al. Remote ischaemic conditioning before hospital admission, as a complement to angioplasty, and effect on myocardial salvage in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a randomised trial. Lancet2010; 375: 727–734.
10.
ManCGongDZhouY, et al. Meta-analysis of remote ischemic conditioning in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Sci Rep2017; 7: 43529.
11.
Le PageSBejan-AngoulvantTAngoulvantD, et al. Remote ischemic conditioning and cardioprotection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Basic Res Cardiol2015; 110: 11.
12.
LiberatiAAltmanDGTetzlaffJ, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ2009; 339: b2700.
13.
HigginsJPAltmanDGGotzschePC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ2011; 343: d5928.
14.
HigginsJPDeeksJJ.Chapter 7: Selecting studies and collecting data. In: HigginsJPTGreenS (eds) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions,Version 510 (updated March 2011) The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www:cochrane-handbook.org. (accessed ).
15.
CrimiGPicaSRaineriC, et al. Remote ischemic post-conditioning of the lower limb during primary percutaneous coronary intervention safely reduces enzymatic infarct size in anterior myocardial infarction: a randomized controlled trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv2013; 6: 1055–1063.
16.
LiuZZhaoLHongD, et al. Remote ischaemic preconditioning reduces myocardial ischaemic reperfusion injury in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Acta Cardiol2016; 71: 596–603.
17.
EitelIStiermaierTRommelKP, et al. Cardioprotection by combined intrahospital remote ischaemic perconditioning and postconditioning in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the randomized LIPSIA CONDITIONING trial. Eur Heart J2015; 36: 3049–3057.
18.
ElbadawiAAwadORaymondR, et al. Impact of remote ischemic postconditioning during primary percutaneous coronary intervention on left ventricular remodeling after anterior wall ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a single-center experience. Int J Angiol2017; 26: 241–248.
19.
YamanakaTKawaiYMiyoshiT, et al. Remote ischemic preconditioning reduces contrast-induced acute kidney injury in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Cardiol2015; 178: 136–141.
20.
GhaffariSPourafkariLManzouriS, et al. Effect of remote ischemic postconditioning during thrombolysis in STEMI. Herz2017; 43: 161–168.
21.
AhmedRMMohamed elHAAshrafM, et al. Effect of remote ischemic preconditioning on serum troponin T level following elective percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv2013; 82: E647–E653.
22.
XuXZhouYLuoS, et al. Effect of remote ischemic preconditioning in the elderly patients with coronary artery disease with diabetes mellitus undergoing elective drug-eluting stent implantation. Angiology2014; 65: 660–666.
23.
LuoSJZhouYJShiDM, et al. Remote ischemic preconditioning reduces myocardial injury in patients undergoing coronary stent implantation. Can J Cardiol2013; 29: 1084–1089.
24.
HooleSPHeckPMSharplesL, et al. Cardiac Remote Ischemic Preconditioning in Coronary Stenting (CRISP Stent) Study: a prospective, randomized control trial. Circulation2009; 119: 820–827.
25.
Carrasco-ChinchillaFMunoz-GarciaAJDominguez-FrancoA, et al. Remote ischaemic postconditioning: does it protect against ischaemic damage in percutaneous coronary revascularisation? Randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial. Heart2013; 99: 1431–1437.
26.
IliodromitisEKKyrzopoulosSParaskevaidisIA, et al. Increased C reactive protein and cardiac enzyme levels after coronary stent implantation. Is there protection by remote ischaemic preconditioning?Heart2006; 92: 1821–1826.
LiuZWangYLHuaQ, et al. Late remote ischemic preconditioning provides benefit to patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention. Cell Biochem Biophys2014; 70: 437–442.
29.
MiyoshiTEjiriKKohnoK, et al. Effect of remote ischemia or nicorandil on myocardial injury following percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with stable coronary artery disease: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Cardiol2017; 236: 36–42.
30.
YilmaztepeMATaylanGAktozM, et al. The impact of a single episode of remote ischemic preconditioning on myocardial injury after elective percutaneous coronary intervention. Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej2017; 13: 39–46.
31.
PrasadAGosslMHoytJ, et al. Remote ischemic preconditioning immediately before percutaneous coronary intervention does not impact myocardial necrosis, inflammatory response, and circulating endothelial progenitor cell counts: a single center randomized sham controlled trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv2013; 81: 930–936.
32.
PrunierFAngoulvantDSaint EtienneC, et al. The RIPOST-MI study, assessing remote ischemic perconditioning alone or in combination with local ischemic postconditioning in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Basic Res Cardiol2014; 109: 400.
33.
YellonDMAckbarkhanAKBalgobinV, et al. Remote ischemic conditioning reduces myocardial infarct size in STEMI patients treated by thrombolysis. J Am Coll Cardiol2015; 65: 2764–2765.
34.
RentoukasIGiannopoulosGKaoukisA, et al. Cardioprotective role of remote ischemic periconditioning in primary percutaneous coronary intervention: enhancement by opioid action. JACC Cardiovasc Interv2010; 3: 49–55.
35.
BromageDIPickardJMRosselloX, et al. Remote ischaemic conditioning reduces infarct size in animal in vivo models of ischaemia-reperfusion injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Res2017; 113: 288–297.
36.
DohiTMaeharaABrenerSJ, et al. Utility of peak creatine kinase-MB measurements in predicting myocardial infarct size, left ventricular dysfunction, and outcome after first anterior wall acute myocardial infarction (from the INFUSE-AMI trial). Am J Cardiol2015; 115: 563–570.
37.
HeuschG.Molecular basis of cardioprotection: signal transduction in ischemic pre-, post-, and remote conditioning. Circ Res2015; 116: 674–699.
38.
EitelIDeschSFuernauG, et al. Prognostic significance and determinants of myocardial salvage assessed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance in acute reperfused myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol2010; 55: 2470–2479.
39.
BurnsRJGibbonsRJYiQ, et al. The relationships of left ventricular ejection fraction, end-systolic volume index and infarct size to six-month mortality after hospital discharge following myocardial infarction treated by thrombolysis. J Am Coll Cardiol2002; 39: 30–36.
40.
BromageDIPickardJMRosselloX, et al. Remote ischaemic conditioning reduces infarct size in animal in vivo models of ischaemia-reperfusion injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Res2017; 113(3): 288–297.
41.
FerdinandyPHausenloyDJHeuschG, et al. Interaction of risk factors, comorbidities, and comedications with ischemia/reperfusion injury and cardioprotection by preconditioning, postconditioning, and remote conditioning. Pharmacol Rev2014; 66: 1142–1174.
42.
KhanJNGreenwoodJPNazirSA, et al. Infarct size following treatment with second- versus third-generation P2Y12 antagonists in patients with multivessel coronary disease at ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in the CvLPRIT Study. J Am Heart Assoc2016; 5(6). pii: e003403.
43.
IbanezBMacayaCSanchez-BruneteV, et al. Effect of early metoprolol on infarct size in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: the Effect of Metoprolol in Cardioprotection During an Acute Myocardial Infarction (METOCARD-CNIC) trial. Circulation2013; 128: 1495–1503.
44.
JohnsenJPrydsKSalmanR, et al. The remote ischemic preconditioning algorithm: effect of number of cycles, cycle duration and effector organ mass on efficacy of protection. Basic Res Cardiol2016; 111: 10.
45.
ZografosTAKatritsisGDTsiafoutisI, et al. Effect of one-cycle remote ischemic preconditioning to reduce myocardial injury during percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol2014; 113: 2013–2017.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
