Effect of remote ischaemic preconditioning on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac bypass surgery: a randomised controlled clinical trial

Le résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVES: Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC), using brief cycles of limb ischaemia/reperfusion, is a non-invasive, low-cost intervention that may reduce perioperative myocardial injury (PMI) in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. We investigated whether RIPC can also improve short-term clinical outcomes. METHODS: One hundred and eighty patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and/or valve surgery were randomised to receive either RIPC (2-5 min cycles of simultaneous upper arm and thigh cuff inflation/deflation; N=90) or control (uninflated cuffs placed on the upper arm and thigh; N=90). The study primary end point was PMI, measured by 72 h area under the curve (AUC) serum high-sensitive troponin-T (hsTnT); secondary end point included short-term clinical outcomes. RESULTS: RIPC reduced PMI magnitude by 26% (-9.303 difference (CI -15.618 to -2.987) 72 h hsTnT-AUC; p=0.003) compared with control. There was also evidence that RIPC reduced the incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation by 54% (11% RIPC vs 24% control; p=0.031) and decreased the incidence of acute kidney injury by 48% (10.0% RIPC vs 21.0% control; p=0.063), and intensive care unit stay by 1 day (2.0 days RIPC (CI 1.0 to 4.0) vs 3.0 days control (CI 2.0 to 4.5); p=0.043). In a post hoc analysis, we found that control patients administered intravenous glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) intraoperatively sustained 39% less PMI compared with those not receiving GTN, and RIPC did not appear to reduce PMI in patients given GTN. CONCLUSIONS: RIPC reduced the extent of PMI in patients undergoing CABG and/or valve surgery. RIPC may also have beneficial effects on short-term clinical outcomes, although this will need to be confirmed in future studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT00397163.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.