Remote ischaemic preconditioning versus no remote ischaemic preconditioning for vascular and endovascular surgical procedures

Remote ischaemic preconditioning versus no remote ischaemic preconditioning for vascular and endovascular surgical procedures

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in perioperative care, elective major vascular surgical procedures still carry a significant risk of morbidity and mortality. Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) is the temporary blocking of blood flow to vascular beds remote from those targeted by surgery. It has the potential to provide local tissue protection from further prolonged periods of ischaemia. However, the efficacy and safety of RIPC in people undergoing major vascular surgery remain unknown. This is an update of a review published in 2011.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of RIPC versus no RIPC in people undergoing elective major vascular and endovascular surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov to 1 April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials that evaluated the role of RIPC in reducing perioperative mortality and morbidities in people undergoing elective major vascular or endovascular surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected data on the characteristics of the trial, methodological quality, and the remote ischaemic preconditioning stimulus used. Our primary outcome was perioperative mortality, and secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction, renal impairment, stroke, hospital stay, limb loss, and operating time or total anaesthetic time. We analysed the data using random-effects models. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) based on an intention-to-treat analysis. In addition, we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 trials which randomised a total of 1295 participants (age range: 64.5 to 76 years; 84% male; study periods ranged from 2003 to 2019). In general, the included studies were at low to unclear risk of bias for most risk of bias domains. The certainty of evidence of main outcomes was moderate due to imprecision of results, moderate heterogeneity, or possible publication bias. We found that RIPC made no clear difference in perioperative mortality compared with no RIPC (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.59 to 3.40; I2 = 0%; 10 studies, 965 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Similarly, we found no clear difference between the two groups for myocardial infarction (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.40; I2 = 7%; 11 studies, 1001 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), renal impairment (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.86; I2 = 40%; 12 studies, 1054 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), stroke (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.15; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 392 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), limb loss (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.05 to 10.61; I2 = 32%; 3 studies, 322 participants; low-certainty evidence), hospital stay (MD -0.94 day, 95% CI -1.95 to 0.07; I2 = 17%; 7 studies, 569 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and operating time or total anaesthetic time (MD 5.76 minutes, 95% CI -3.25 to 14.76; I2 = 44%; 10 studies, 803 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, compared with no RIPC, RIPC probably leads to little or no difference in perioperative mortality, myocardial infarction, renal impairment, stroke, hospital stay, and operating time, and may lead to little or no difference in limb loss in people undergoing elective major vascular and endovascular surgery. Adequately powered and designed randomised studies are needed, focusing in particular on the clinical endpoints and patient-centred outcomes.

[Summary of the S3 guideline on abdominal aortic aneurysm from an anesthesiological perspective]

The current article is a summary of the 2018 revised S3 guideline on screening, diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up of the abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) from an anesthesiological point of view. It is the only interdisciplinary guideline that describes in particular the perioperative anesthesiological and intensive care management.

Effect of Intravenous Injection of Vitamin C on Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: A Double-Blind, Randomized Trial

Purpose

In this study, the effect of intravenous vitamin C during surgery on the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass and cardiac surgery was observed, and its protective effect on the lungs was evaluated to provide a reference for clinical medication.

Patients and Methods

Patients undergoing cardiac surgery under cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) were selected. The patients were divided into group A and group C by random sequence. Patients in group A received intravenous vitamin C 1 g 10 minutes after induction of anesthesia, 10 minutes before cardiac reanimation and at the moment of sternal closure. Patients in group C were intravenously injected with the same volume of saline at the same time. The primary outcome was the postoperative pulmonary complication severity score. Other outcomes were the incidence of PPCs, awakening time, extubation time, length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, adverse events, oxygenation index (PaO₂/FiO₂), alveolar arterial oxygen partial pressure difference (A-aDO₂), dynamic lung compliance (Cd) and static lung compliance (Cs).

Results

Seventy patients completed the study. Compared to group C, the postoperative pulmonary complication score [2(2–3) vs 2(1–2); P=0.009] and the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (32.43% vs 12.12%; P =0.043) were lower in group A. There were no significant differences in awakening time, extubation time, length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, adverse events, PaO₂/FiO₂, A-aDO₂, Cs, and Cd between the two groups (P>0.05).

Conclusion

In summary, this small randomized trial including low-risk cardiac surgery patients shows that intravenous vitamin C may safely be administered and may be helpful to prevent PPCs after cardiac surgery.

Remote Ischemic Postconditioning for Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background:

Remote ischemic postconditioning (RIPostC) appears to protect distant organs from ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI). However, cerebral protection results have remained inconclusive. In the present study, a meta-analysis was performed to compare stroke patients with and without RIPostC.

Methods:

CNKI, WanFang, VIP, CBM, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to July 2016. Data were analyzed using both fixed-effects and random-effects models by Review Manager. For each outcome, risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.

Results:

A total of 13 randomized controlled trials that enrolled a total of 794 study participants who suffered from or are at risk for brain IRI were selected. Compared with controls, RIPostC significantly reduced the recurrence of stroke or transient ischemic attacks (RR = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.26–0.55; P < 0.00001). Moreover, it can reduce the levels of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (MD: 1.96; 95% CI: 2.18–1.75; P < 0.00001), modified Rankin Scale score (MD: 0.73; 95% CI: 1.20–0.25; P = 0.00300), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (MD: 4.17; 95% CI: 4.71–3.62; P < 0.00001) between the two groups. There was no side effect of RIPostC using tourniquet cuff around the limb on ischemic stroke treating based on different intervention duration.

Conclusion:

The present meta-analysis suggests that RIPostC might offer cerebral protection for stroke patients suffering from or are at risk of brain IRI.

Remote ischaemic conditioning for preventing and treating ischaemic stroke

BACKGROUND

Remote ischaemic conditioning (RIC) has been developed as a neuroprotective strategy to prevent and treat ischaemic stroke. It usually involves restricting blood flow to limbs and then releasing the ischaemic blood to promote a neuroprotective effect. Preclinical studies have suggested that RIC may have beneficial effects in ischaemic stroke patients and those at risk of ischaemic stroke. However, existing evidence is insufficient to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of RIC in preventing and treating ischaemic stroke.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of RIC for preventing ischaemic stroke and for treating people with ischaemic stroke and those at risk for ischaemic stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (16 January 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 12) in the Cochrane Library (January 2018), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to January 2018), Embase Ovid (1974 to January 2018), Web of Science Core Collection (1950 to January 2018) and three Chinese databases (January 2018). We also searched four ongoing trials registers, reference lists, and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RIC with sham RIC or medical management in people with ischaemic stroke or at risk of ischaemic stroke.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials, involving 735 participants, in this review. We analysed the effects of RIC on preventing and treating ischaemic stroke respectively.We evaluated risk of bias and judged it to be low for generation of allocation sequence in six studies and unclear in one study; unclear for allocation concealment in four studies and low in three studies; high for incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) in five studies and low in two studies; high for blinding in three studies and low in four studies; low for selective reporting; and high for other sources of bias in six studies and low in one study.We included three trials (involving 371 participants) in the analysis of the effects of RIC on ischaemic stroke prevention. In people with symptomatic intracerebral artery stenosis, recurrent stroke was significantly reduced by RIC (risk ratio (RR) 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 0.83; 2 trials, 182 participants, low-quality evidence). In people with carotid stenosis undergoing carotid stenting, there was no significant difference in the incidence of ischaemic stroke between participants treated with RIC and non-RIC (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.03; 1 trial, 189 participants, low-quality evidence); however the stroke severity (assessed by infarct volume) was significantly lower in participants treated with RIC (mean difference (MD) -0.17 mL, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.11; 1 trial, 189 participants, low-quality evidence). Adverse events associated with RIC were significantly higher in participants treated with RIC (RR 10.91; 95% CI 2.01 to 59.28; 3 trials, 371 participants, low-quality evidence), but no severe adverse event was attributable to RIC treatment. No participants experienced death or cardiovascular events during the period of the studies; and no trial reported haemorrhagic stroke or improvement in neurological, phycological or cognitive impairment.We included four trials (involving 364 participants) in the analysis of the effects of RIC on ischaemic stroke treatment. In acute ischaemic stroke, for people receiving intravenous thrombolysis, the rate of death or dependency was significantly increased by RIC treatment compared with non-RIC treatment (RR 2.34; 95% 1.19 to 4.61; 1 trial, 285 participants, low-quality evidence). In people with acute ischaemic stroke, there was no significant difference between RIC and non-RIC for reducing stroke severity as assessed by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score and the final infarct volume (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.24 mL, 95% CI -1.02 to 0.54; 2 trials, 175 participants, very low quality evidence). There was no significant difference between RIC and non-RIC for improving the psychological impairment (SMD -0.37 points, 95% CI -1.15 to 0.41; 1 trial, 26 participants, very low quality evidence) and the cognitive impairment (SMD -0.26 points; 95% CI -0.72 to 0.21; 3 trials, 79 participants, low-quality evidence) in people with acute ischaemic stroke and cerebral small vessel disease. No trial reported ischaemic stroke, recurrent ischaemic stroke, improvement in neurological impairment, hemorrhagic stroke, cardiovascular events, and RIC associated adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low-quality evidence that RIC may reduce the risk of recurrent stroke in participants with intracerebral artery stenosis and reduce stroke severity in participants undergoing carotid stenting, but it may increase death or dependence in participants with acute ischaemic stroke who are undergoing intravenous thrombolysis. However, there is considerable uncertainty about these conclusions because of the small number of studies and low quality of the evidence.

Randomized clinical trial of remote ischaemic preconditioning versus no preconditioning in the prevention of perioperative myocardial infarction during open surgery for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

Background

Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) has been suggested as a means of protecting vital organs from reperfusion injury during major vascular surgery. This study was designed to determine whether RIPC could reduce the incidence of perioperative myocardial infarction (MI) during open surgery for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Secondary aims were to see if RIPC could reduce 30-day mortality, multiple organ failure, acute intestinal ischaemia, acute kidney injury and ischaemic stroke.

Methods

This randomized, non-blinded clinical trial was undertaken at three vascular surgery centres in Denmark. Patients who had open surgery for ruptured AAA were randomized to intervention with RIPC or control in a 1 : 1 ratio. Postoperative complications and deaths were registered, and ECG and blood samples were obtained daily during the hospital stay.

Results

Of 200 patients randomized, 142 (72 RIPC, 70 controls) were included. There was no difference in rates of perioperative MI between the RIPC and control groups (36 versus 43 per cent respectively), or in rates of organ failure. However, in the per-protocol analysis 30-day mortality was significantly reduced in the RIPC group (odds ratio 0·46, 95 per cent c.i. 0·22 to 0·99; P = 0·048).

Conclusion

RIPC did not reduce the incidence of perioperative MI in patients undergoing open surgery for ruptured AAA. Registration number: NCT00883363 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Ischaemic preconditioning for the reduction of renal ischaemia reperfusion injury

BACKGROUND

Ischaemia reperfusion injury can lead to kidney dysfunction or failure. Ischaemic preconditioning is a short period of deprivation of blood supply to particular organs or tissue, followed by a period of reperfusion. It has the potential to protect kidneys from ischaemia reperfusion injury.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to look at the benefits and harms of local and remote ischaemic preconditioning to reduce ischaemia and reperfusion injury among people with renal ischaemia reperfusion injury.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 5 August 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials measuring kidney function and the role of ischaemic preconditioning in patients undergoing a surgical intervention that induces kidney injury. Kidney transplantation studies were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were assessed for eligibility and quality; data were extracted by two independent authors. We collected basic study characteristics: type of surgery, remote ischaemic preconditioning protocol, type of anaesthesia. We collected primary outcome measurements: serum creatinine and adverse effects to remote ischaemic preconditioning and secondary outcome measurements: acute kidney injury, need for dialysis, neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, hospital stay and mortality. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 28 studies which randomised a total of 6851 patients. Risk of bias assessment indicated unclear to low risk of bias for most studies. For consistency regarding the direction of effects, continuous outcomes with negative values, and dichotomous outcomes with values less than one favour remote ischaemic preconditioning. Based on high quality evidence, remote ischaemic preconditioning made little or no difference to the reduction of serum creatinine levels at postoperative days one (14 studies, 1022 participants: MD -0.02 mg/dL, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.02; I2 = 21%), two (9 studies, 770 participants: MD -0.04 mg/dL, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.02; I2 = 31%), and three (6 studies, 417 participants: MD -0.05 mg/dL, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.10; I2 = 68%) compared to control.Serious adverse events occurred in four patients receiving remote ischaemic preconditioning by iliac clamping. It is uncertain whether remote ischaemic preconditioning by cuff inflation leads to increased adverse effects compared to control because the certainty of the evidence is low (15 studies, 3993 participants: RR 3.47, 95% CI 0.55 to 21.76; I2 = 0%); only two of 15 studies reported any adverse effects (6/1999 in the remote ischaemic preconditioning group and 1/1994 in the control group), the remaining 13 studies stated no adverse effects were observed in either group.Compared to control, remote ischaemic preconditioning made little or no difference to the need for dialysis (13 studies, 2417 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.94; I2 = 60%; moderate quality evidence), length of hospital stay (8 studies, 920 participants: MD 0.17 days, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.80; I2 = 49%, high quality evidence), or all-cause mortality (24 studies, 4931 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.37; I2 = 0%, high quality evidence).Remote ischaemic preconditioning may have slightly improved the incidence of acute kidney injury using either the AKIN (8 studies, 2364 participants: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.00; I2 = 61%, high quality evidence) or RIFLE criteria (3 studies, 1586 participants: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.12; I2 = 0%, moderate quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Remote ischaemic preconditioning by cuff inflation appears to be a safe method, and probably leads to little or no difference in serum creatinine, adverse effects, need for dialysis, length of hospital stay, death and in the incidence of acute kidney injury. Overall we had moderate-high certainty evidence however the available data does not confirm the efficacy of remote ischaemic preconditioning in reducing renal ischaemia reperfusion injury in patients undergoing major cardiac and vascular surgery in which renal ischaemia reperfusion injury may occur.

Remote ischemic preconditioning in the prevention of ischemic brain damage during intracranial aneurysm treatment (RIPAT): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The treatment of intracranial aneurysms may be associated with cerebral ischemia. We hypothesize that pre-interventional remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) reduces ischemic cerebral tissue damage in patients undergoing elective intracranial aneurysm treatment.

METHODS/DESIGN

This study is a single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind explorative trial. Patients with an unruptured intracranial aneurysm admitted to Innsbruck Medical University Hospital for coiling or clipping will be consecutively randomized to either the intervention group (= RIPC by inflating an upper extremity blood-pressure cuff for 3 x 5 min to 200 mmHg) or the control group after induction of anesthesia. Participants will be randomized 1:1 to either the preconditioning group or the sham group using a random allocation sequence and block randomization. The precalculated sample size is n = 24 per group. The primary endpoint is the area-under-the-curve concentration of serum biomarkers (S100B, NSE, GFAP, MMP9, MBP, and cellular microparticles) in the first five days after treatment. Secondary endpoints are the number and volume of new ischemic lesions in magnetic resonance imaging and clinical outcome evaluated with the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, the modified Rankin Scale, and neuropsychological tests at six and twelve months. All outcome variables will be determined by observers blinded to group allocation. This study was approved by the local institutional Ethics Committee (UN5164), version 3.0 of the study protocol, dated 20 October 2013.

DISCUSSION

This study uses the elective treatment of intracranial aneurysms as a paradigmatic situation to explore the neuroprotective effects of RIPC. If effects are demonstrable in this pilot trial, a larger, prospective phase III trial will be considered.

Validity of the Postoperative Morbidity Survey after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair-a prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Currently, there is no standardised tool used to capture morbidity following abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. The aim of this prospective observational study was to validate the Postoperative Morbidity Survey (POMS) according to its two guiding principles: to only capture morbidity substantial enough to delay discharge from hospital and to be a rapid, simple screening tool.

METHODS

A total of 64 adult patients undergoing elective infrarenal AAA repair participated in the study. Following surgery, the POMS was recorded daily, by trained research staff with the clinical teams blinded, until hospital discharge or death. We modelled the data using Cox regression, accounting for the competing risk of death, with POMS as a binary time-dependent (repeated measures) internal covariate. For each day for each patient, 'discharged' (yes/no) was the event, with the elapsed number of days post-surgery as the time variable. We derived the hazard ratio for any POMS morbidity (score 1-9) vs. no morbidity (zero), adjusted for type of repair (endovascular versus open), age and aneurysm size.

RESULTS

The hazard ratio for alive discharge with any POMS-recorded morbidity versus no morbidity was 0.130 (95 % confidence interval 0.070 to 0.243). The median time-to-discharge was 13 days after recording any POMS morbidity vs. 2 days after scoring zero for POMS morbidity. Compliance with POMS completion was 99.5 %.

CONCLUSIONS

The POMS is a valid tool for capturing short-term postoperative morbidity following elective infrarenal AAA repair that is substantial enough to delay discharge from hospital. Daily POMS measurement is recommended to fully capture morbidity and allow robust analysis. The survey could be a valuable outcome measure for use in quality improvement programmes and future research.

Remote ischaemic preconditioning versus sham procedure for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: an external feasibility randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in perioperative care, elective abdominal aorta aneurysm (AAA) repair carries significant morbidity and mortality. Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIC) is a physiological phenomenon whereby a brief episode of ischaemia-reperfusion protects against a subsequent longer ischaemic insult. Trials in cardiovascular surgery have shown that RIC can protect patients' organs during surgery. The aim of this study was to investigate whether RIC could be successfully introduced in elective AAA repair and to obtain the information needed to design a multi-centre RCT.

METHODS

Consecutive patients presenting for elective AAA repair, using an endovascular (EVAR) or open procedure, in a single large city hospital in the UK were assessed for trial eligibility. Patients who consented to participate were randomized to receive RIC (three cycles of 5 min ischaemia followed by 5 min reperfusion in the upper arm immediately before surgery) or a sham procedure. Patients were followed up for 6 months. We assessed eligibility and consent rates, the logistics of RIC implementation, randomization, blinding, data capture, patient and staff opinion, and variability and frequency of clinical outcome measures.

RESULTS

Between January 2010 and December 2012, 98 patients were referred for AAA repair, 93 were screened, 85 (91%) were eligible, 70 were approached for participation and 69 consented to participate; 34 were randomized to RIC and 35 to the sham procedure. There was a greater than expected variation in the complexity of EVAR that impacted the outcomes. Acute kidney injury occurred in 28 (AKIN 1: 23%; AKIN 2: 15% and AKIN 3: 3%) and 7 (10%) had a perioperative myocardial infarction. Blinding was successful, and interviews with participants and staff indicated that the procedure was acceptable. There were no adverse events secondary to the intervention in the 6 months following the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided essential information for the planning and design of a multi-centre RCT to assess effectiveness of RIC for improving clinical outcomes in elective AAA repair. Patient consent was high, and the RIC intervention was carried out with minimal disruption to clinical care. The allocation scheme for a definite trial should take into account both the surgical procedure and its complexity to avoid confounding the effect of the RIC, as was observed in this study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN19332276 (date of registration: 16 March 2012). The trial protocol is available from the corresponding author.

Association between clinical presentations before myocardial infarction and coronary mortality: a prospective population-based study using linked electronic records

Background

Ischaemia in different arterial territories before acute myocardial infarction (AMI) may influence post-AMI outcomes. No studies have evaluated prospectively collected information on ischaemia and its effect on short- and long-term coronary mortality. The objective of this study was to compare patients with and without prospectively measured ischaemic presentations before AMI in terms of infarct characteristics and coronary mortality.

Methods and results

As part of the CALIBER programme, we linked data from primary care, hospital admissions, the national acute coronary syndrome registry and cause-specific mortality to identify patients with first AMI (n = 16,439). We analysed time from AMI to coronary mortality (n = 5283 deaths) using Cox regression (median 2.6 years follow-up), comparing patients with and without recent ischaemic presentations. Patients with ischaemic presentations in the 90 days before AMI experienced lower coronary mortality in the first 7 days after AMI compared with those with no prior ischaemic presentations, after adjusting for age, sex, smoking, diabetes, blood pressure and cardiovascular medications [HR: 0.64 (95% CI: 0.57–0.73) P < 0.001], but subsequent mortality was higher [HR: 1.42 (1.13–1.77) P = 0.001]. Patients with ischaemic presentations closer in time to AMI had the lowest seven day mortality (P-trend = 0.001).

Conclusion

In the first large prospective study of ischaemic presentations prior to AMI, we have shown that those occurring closest to AMI are associated with lower short-term coronary mortality following AMI, which could represent a natural ischaemic preconditioning effect, observed in a clinical setting.

Clinical trials registration

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01604486.

Moving beyond supportive care--current status of specific therapies in pediatric acute kidney injury

Acute kidney injury (AKI) remains a significant challenge, leading to increased morbidity, mortality, and medical costs. Therapy for AKI to this point has largely been supportive; specific interventions to treat established AKI have had minimal effect. Review of the pathogenesis of AKI reveals complex, interacting mechanisms, including changes in microcirculation, the immune system, and inflammation, and cell death from both necrosis and apoptosis. Past definitions of AKI have been imprecise; newer methods for AKI identification and classification, including novel biomarkers and improved criteria for defining AKI, may permit earlier intervention with greater potential for success. With improved understanding of pathophysiology and the opportunity for intervention before AKI is fully established, clinicians may be able to move beyond supportive care and improve outcomes.

The role of remote ischemic preconditioning in the treatment of atherosclerotic diseases

BACKGROUND

Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) is the application of a transient and brief ischemic stimulus to a distant site from the organ or tissue that is afterward exposed to injury ischemia, and has been found to reduce ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) in various animal models. RIPC appears to offer two distinct phases of endothelial IRI protection, which are presumably mediated through neuronal and humoral pathways.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature review on the available published data about the potential effect of RIPC in patients undergoing IRI in one or more vital organs.

RESULTS

Our search highlighted 24 randomized clinical trials about the effect of RIPC on variable clinical settings (abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, open heart surgery, percutaneous coronary intervention, living donor renal transplantation, coronary angiography, elective decompression surgery, carotid endarterectomy, recent stroke, or transient ischemic attack combined with intracranial carotid artery stenosis). Most of the trials focused on postoperative cardiac or renal function after RIPC with conflicting results. Preconditioning protocols, age limits, comorbidities, and concomitant drug use varied significantly across trials, and therefore no firm conclusions can be drawn using the available data. However, no severe local adverse events were observed in any patient undergoing limb or arm preconditioning.

CONCLUSIONS

RIPC is a safe and well-tolerated procedure that may constitute a potentially promising innovative treatment in atherosclerotic diseases. Large, multicenter, randomized clinical trials are required to determine an optimal protocol for the RIPC procedure, and to evaluate further the potential benefits of RIPC in human ischemic injury.

The role of remote ischemic preconditioning on postoperative kidney injury in patients undergoing cardiac and vascular interventions: a meta-analysis

The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating whether a remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) protocol provides renal protection to patients undergoing cardiac and vascular interventions. Searches were conducted in the databases PUBMED, EMBASE and Cochrane Library. RCTs that fulfilled the inclusion criteria and addressed the clinical questions of this analysis were further assessed. We identified ten studies with a total of 924 patients undergoing cardiac and vascular interventions with or without RIPC. There was a significantly lower incidence of acute kidney injury in the RIPC group compared with control group using the fixed effect model (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.90, P = 0.007), but not with the random effects model (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.06, P = 0.10). There was no difference in the levels of renal biomarkers, incidence of renal replacement therapy, mortality, hospital stay, and intensive care unit stay between two groups. In conclusion, there is no enough evidence that RIPC provided renal protection in patients undergoing cardiac and vascular interventions. Large-scale RCTs are necessary to confirm the potential role of RIPC on renal impairment.