Remote Ischemic Preconditioning Neither Improves Survival nor Reduces Myocardial or Kidney Injury in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI)

Remote ischaemic preconditioning for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

INTRODUCTION

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become an important treatment in patients with aortic valve disease with the continuous advancement of technology and the improvement of outcomes. However, TAVR-related complications still increase patient morbidity and mortality. Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) is a simple procedure that provides perioperative protection for many vital organs. However, the efficiency of RIPC on TAVR remains unclear based on inconsistent conclusions from different clinical studies. Therefore, we will perform a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the efficiency of RIPC on TAVR.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

English databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library), Chinese electronic databases (Wanfang Database, VIP Database and China National Knowledge Infrastructure) and trial registry databases will be searched from inception to December 2023 to identify randomised controlled trials of RIPC on TAVR. We will calculate mean differences or standardised mean differences with 95% CIs for continuous data, and the risk ratio (RR) with 95% CIs for dichotomous data by Review Manager version 5.4. Fixed-effects model or random-effects model will be used according to the degree of statistical heterogeneity assessed by the I-square test. We will evaluate the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2 and assess the evidence quality of each outcome by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. The robustness of outcomes will be evaluated by trial sequential analysis. In addition, we will evaluate the publication bias of outcomes by Funnel plots and Egger's regression test.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was not required for this systematic review protocol. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023462926.

The effect of Remote Ischemic Preconditioning (RIPC) on myocardial injury and inflammation in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVΙ)

BACKGROUND

Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) is being evaluated as a strategy to reduce cardiac injury and inflammation in patients undergoing diverse cardiac invasive and surgical procedures. However, it is unclear whether RIPC has protective effects in patients undergoing the transfemoral- transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVΙ) procedure.

METHODS

Between September 2013 and September 2015, 55 random consecutive patients were prospectively assigned to receive SHAM preconditioning (SHAM, 22 patients) or Remote Ischemic Preconditioning (RIPC) (4 cycles of 5 min intermittent leg ischemia and 5 min reperfusion, 33 patients) prior to TF-TAVI. The primary endpoint was to determine the serum levels of: hs-cTn-I (necrosis), CK-18 (apoptosis), and IL-1b (inflammation). Quantification was performed using commercially available ELISA kits. Patients were sampled 1-day pre TF-TAVΙ and 24-hours post TF-TAVΙ. Secondary endpoints included: total mortality, incidence of periprocedural clinical acute myocardial infarction (AMI), acute kidney injury (AKI), and stroke.

RESULTS

22 SHAM patients and 33 RIPC patients were finally analyzed. Our data revealed no significant difference in serum levels of hs-cTn-I and CK-18 among various groups. However, in the RIPC group, the increase in IL1b level was significantly lower for 24-h post TF-TAVΙ, (p < 0.01). There were no significant differences between groups in the secondary endpoints at the follow-up interval of one month. RIPC-related adverse events were not observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that RIPC did not exhibit significant cardiac or kidney protective effects regarding necrosis and apoptosis in patients undergoing TF-TAVΙ. However, an important anti-inflammatory effect was detected in the RIPC group.

Remote ischemic preconditioning in isolated valve intervention. A pooled meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Recent studies have shown no benefits from remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery. One possible explanation is that given previous exposure to angina and ischemia/reperfusion injury these patients, may be already 'naturally preconditioned'. The role of RIPC in a context of isolated valve intervention, both surgical and particularly transcatheter is less clear and remains under investigated, with few high-quality studies.

METHODS

A systematic literature review identified 8 candidate studies that met the meta-analysis criteria. We analyzed outcomes of 610 subjects (312 RIPC and 298 SHAM) with random effects modeling. Each study was assessed for heterogeneity. The primary outcome was the extent of periprocedural myocardial injury, as reflected by the area under the curve for serum troponin concentration. Secondary endpoints included relevant intra- and post-operative outcomes; sensitivity and high-quality subgroup analysis was also carried out.

RESULTS

Six and two studies reported the effect of RIPC in surgical and transcatheter valve intervention. There was a significant difference between-group in terms of periprocedural Troponin release (standardized mean difference (SMD: 0.74 [95% CI: 0.52; 0.95], p = 0.02) with no heterogeneity (χ2 2.40, I2 0%, p = 0.88). RIPC was not associated with any improvement in post-operative outcomes. No serious adverse RIPC related events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

RIPC seems to elicit overall periprocedural cardioprotection in patients undergoing valvular intervention, yet with no benefit on early clinical outcomes.

Effect of remote ischemic preconditioning among donors and recipients following pediatric liver transplantation: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Studies suggested that remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) may effectively lessen the harmful effects of ischemia reperfusion injury during organ transplantation surgery.

AIM

To investigate the protective effects of RIPC on living liver donors and recipients following pediatric liver transplantation.

METHODS

From January 2016 to January 2019 at Renji Hospital Affiliated with Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, 208 donors were recruited and randomly assigned to four groups: S-RIPC group (no intervention; n = 55), D-RIPC group (donors received RIPC; n = 51), R-RIPC group (recipients received RIPC, n = 51) and DR-RIPC group (both donors and recipients received RIPC; n = 51). We primarily evaluated postoperative liver function among donors and recipients and incidences of early allograft dysfunction, primary nonfunction and postoperative complications among recipients.

RESULTS

RIPC did not significantly improve alanine transaminase and aspartate aminotransferase levels among donors and recipients or decrease the incidences of early allograft dysfunction, primary nonfunction, and postoperative complications among recipients. Limited protective effects were observed, including a lower creatinine level in the D-RIPC group than in the S-RIPC group on postoperative day 0 (P < 0.05). However, no significant improvements were found in donors who received RIPC. Furthermore, RIPC had no effects on the overall survival of recipients.

CONCLUSION

The protective effects of RIPC were limited for recipients who received living liver transplantation, and no significant improvement of the prognosis was observed in recipients.

90 days impacts of remote ischemic preconditioning on patients undergoing open total aortic arch replacement: a post-hoc analysis of previous trial

Background

In the previous randomized controlled trial by our research group, we evaluated the effect of remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) in 130 patients (65 per arm) on acute kidney injury (AKI) within 7 days of open total aortic arch replacement. Significantly fewer RIPC-treated patients than sham-treated patients developed postoperative AKI, and, epically, RIPC significantly reduced serious AKI (stage II–III). However, the long-term effect of RIPC in patients undergoing open total aortic arch replacement is unclear.

Methods

This study was a post-hoc analysis. We aimed to assess the roles of RIPC in major adverse kidney events (MAKE), defined as consisting persistent renal dysfunction, renal replacement therapy and mortality, within 90 days after surgery in patients receiving open total aortic arch replacement.

Results

In this 90-day follow-up study, data were available for all study participants. We found that RIPC failed to improve the presence of MAKE within 90 days after surgery (RIPC: 7 of 65[10.8%]) vs sham: 15 of 65[23.1%]; P = 0.061). In those patients who developed AKI after surgery, we found that the rate of MAKE within 90 days after surgery differed between the RIPC group and the sham group (RIPC: 4 of 36[11.2%]; sham: 14 of 48[29.2%]; P = 0.046).

Conclusions

At 90 days after open total aortic arch replacement, we failed to find a difference between the renoprotective effects of RIPC and sham treatment. The effectiveness or ineffectiveness of RIPC should be further investigated in a large randomized sham-controlled trial.

Trial registration

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Fuwai Hospital (No. 2016–835) and our previous study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov before patient enrollment (NCT03141385; principal investigator: G.W.; date of registration: March 5, 2017).