Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Remote ischemic preconditioning in human coronary artery bypass surgery: from promise to disappointment?
Rahman, Ishtiaq A; Mascaro, Jorge G; Steeds, Rick P; Frenneaux, Michael P; Nightingale, Peter; Gosling, Peter; Townsend, Peter; Townend, John N; Green, David; Bonser, Robert S.
Afiliação
  • Rahman IA; Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.
Circulation ; 122(11 Suppl): S53-9, 2010 Sep 14.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20837926
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

We assessed whether remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) improves myocardial, renal, and lung protection after on-pump coronary surgery. METHODS AND

RESULTS:

This was a single-center, prospective, randomized (11), placebo-controlled trial. Patients, investigators, anesthetists, surgeons, and critical care teams were blinded to group allocation. Subjects received RIPC (or placebo) stimuli (×3 upper limb (or dummy arm), 5-minute cycles of 200 mm Hg cuff inflation/deflation) before aortic clamping. Anesthesia, perfusion, cardioplegia, and surgical techniques were standardized. The primary end point was 48-hour area under the curve (AUC) troponin T (cTnT) release. Secondary end points were 6-hour and peak cTnT, ECG changes, cardiac index, inotrope and vasoconstrictor use, renal dysfunction, and lung injury. Hospital survival was 99.4%. Comparing placebo and RIPC, median (interquartile range) AUC 48-hour cTnT (ng/mL(-1)/48 h(-1)); 28 (19, 39) versus 30 (22, 38), 6-hour cTnT (ng/mL(-1)); 0.93(0.59, 1.35) versus 1.01(0.72, 1.43), peak cTnT (ng/mL(-1)); 1.02 (0.74, 1.44) versus 1.04 (0.78, 1.51), de novo left bundle-branch block (4% versus 0%) and Q waves (5.3% versus 5.5%), serial cardiac indices, intraaortic balloon pump usage (8.5% versus 7.5%), inotrope (39% versus 50%) and vasoconstrictor usage (66% versus 64%) were not different. Dialysis requirement (1.2% versus 3.8%), peak creatinine (median [interquartile range], 1.2 mg/dL(-1) (1.1, 1.4) versus 1.2 (1.0, 1.4)), and AUC urinary albumin-creatinine ratios 69 (40, 112) versus 58 (32, 85) were not different. Intubation times; median (interquartile range), 937 minutes(766, 1402) versus 895(675, 1180), 6-hour; 278 (210, 338) versus 270 (218, 323) and 12-hour pO(2)FiO(2) ratios 255 (195, 323) versus 263 (210, 308) were similar.

CONCLUSIONS:

In contrast to prior smaller studies, RIPC did not reduce troponin release, improve hemodynamics, or enhance renal or lung protection. Clinical Trial Registration-URL http//www.ukcrn.org.uk. Unique identifier 4659.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Ponte de Artéria Coronária / Precondicionamento Isquêmico Miocárdico / Circulação Extracorpórea Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Circulation Ano de publicação: 2010 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Reino Unido

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Ponte de Artéria Coronária / Precondicionamento Isquêmico Miocárdico / Circulação Extracorpórea Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Circulation Ano de publicação: 2010 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Reino Unido