Effect of remote ischaemic preconditioning on mortality and morbidity after non-cardiac surgery: meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wahlstrom KL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7970092 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Despite advances in surgery support there are unmet needs for cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) patients being at risk of perioperative ischemia. Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) is considered as adjuvant therapy, but its effects are still underexplored. Thus, we monitored transcriptomic responses from the RIPC procedure during and after cardiac surgery in a pilot study, comprising 34 samples and 10 for validation from patients. We systematically compared the response between CTRL and RIPC including individual effects and dynamics. We gratefully acknowledge the support from the study participants as part of the clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01067703). Different individual and time-resolved patterns were found for preconditioned patients (RIPC) comprising alternated cytokine, ribosomal and stress related genes. This was confirmed by a tailored method for ranking candidates by integrating variance and expression changes at once.
2017-09-01 | GSE58270 | GEO
Project description:Endothelial dysfunction result from inflammation and excessive production of reactive oxygen species as part of the surgical stress response. Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) potentially exerts anti-oxidative and anti-inflammatory properties, which might stabilise the endothelial function after non-cardiac surgery. This was a single centre randomised clinical trial including 60 patients undergoing sub-acute laparoscopic cholecystectomy due to acute cholecystitis. Patients were randomised to RIPC or control. The RIPC procedure consisted of four cycles of five minutes of ischaemia and reperfusion of one upper extremity. Endothelial function was assessed as the reactive hyperaemia index (RHI) and circulating biomarkers of nitric oxide (NO) bioavailability (L-arginine, asymmetric dimethylarginine (ADMA), L-arginine/ADMA ratio, tetra- and dihydrobiopterin (BH4 and BH2), and total plasma biopterin) preoperative, 2-4 h after surgery and 24 h after surgery. RHI did not differ between the groups (p = 0.07). Neither did levels of circulating biomarkers of NO bioavailability change in response to RIPC. L-arginine and L-arginine/ADMA ratio was suppressed preoperatively and increased 24 h after surgery (p < 0.001). The BH4/BH2-ratio had a high preoperative level, decreased 2-4 h after surgery and remained low 24 h after surgery (p = 0.01). RIPC did not influence endothelial function or markers of NO bioavailability until 24 h after sub-acute laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In response to surgery, markers of NO bioavailability increased, and oxidative stress decreased. These findings support that a minimally invasive removal of the inflamed gallbladder countereffects reduced markers of NO bioavailability and increased oxidative stress caused by acute cholecystitis.
| S-EPMC10047371 | biostudies-literature
Project description:RationaleRemote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) is a novel cardioprotective strategy that uses brief intermittent limb ischaemia to protect the myocardium and other organs from perioperative ischaemic damage. The precise mechanism through which this protective effect occurs is unknown, but potentially could be related to changes in blood-borne mediators such as cytokines.ObjectiveTo determine whether RIPC alters inflammatory cytokine expression in a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial of patients undergoing high-risk cardiac surgery.Methods and resultsSerum interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, and IL-10 levels from 95 patients randomised to RIPC (n=47) or control treatment (n=48) were measured preoperatively, and 1, 2, 3, 6 and 12?h after cross-clamp removal. Systemic concentrations of all cytokines were increased from baseline following surgery, and, compared with simple procedures, complex surgeries were associated with significantly higher release of IL-6 (ratio of mean area under the curves 1.54 (95% CI 1.02 to 2.34), p=0.04) and IL-10 (1.97 (1.16 to 3.35), p=0.012). No significant difference in mean cytokine levels between the RIPC and control groups was detected at any time point, irrespective of the type of surgery undergone.ConclusionsHigh levels of IL-6, IL-8 and IL-10 are produced during high-risk cardiac surgery, and RIPC does not alter these elevated perioperative cytokine concentrations. Identification of factors that influence the ability to induce RIPC-mediated cardioprotection should be the priority of future research.Trial registrationis in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (http://www.anzctr.org.au; ACTRN12609000965202).
| S-EPMC4832611 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cardiac and inflammatory biomarkers have been associated with adverse outcome after major abdominal surgery. This study investigated the effect of remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) on perioperative concentrations of high-sensitive cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) T and interleukin (IL) 6. Adult patients scheduled for elective pancreatic surgery between March 2017 and February 2019 were randomized to either three cycles of upper-limb ischaemia and reperfusion (each 5 min) or a sham procedure before surgery. The primary endpoint was the maximum postoperative hs-cTnT concentration within 48 h after surgery. Secondary endpoints were postoperative myocardial injury (PMI), defined as an absolute increase of hs-cTnT of at least 14 ng/l above baseline concentration, maximum concentration of IL-6 within 48 h after surgery and postoperative complications within 30 days of surgery. Of 99 eligible patients, 46 underwent RIPC and 46 a sham procedure. RIPC did not reduce the maximum hs-cTnT concentration after surgery (12.6 ng/l RIPC, 16.6 ng/l controls, P = 0.225), nor did it lessen the incidence of PMI (15/45 RIPC, 18/45 controls, P = 0.375). The maximum postoperative IL-6 concentration was 265 pg/ml after RIPC versus 385 pg/ml in controls (P = 0.108). Postoperative complications occurred in 23 RIPC and 24 control patients respectively. Remote ischaemic preconditioning did not reduce the maximum postoperative hs-cTnT concentration. Postoperative myocardial injury, IL-6 concentrations and postoperative complications were similar between RIPC patients and controls. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT03460938.
| S-EPMC8065964 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite 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 methodsThe 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 criteriaWe 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 analysisWe 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 resultsWe 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.
| S-EPMC9841888 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsRemote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) by inducing brief ischaemia in distant tissues protects the heart against myocardial ischaemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) in children undergoing open-heart surgery, although its effectiveness in adults with comorbidities is controversial. The effectiveness and mechanism of RIPC with respect to myocardial IRI in children with tetralogy of Fallot (ToF), a severe cyanotic congenital cardiac disease, undergoing open heart surgery are unclear. We hypothesized that RIPC can confer cardioprotection in children undergoing ToF repair surgery.Methods and resultsOverall, 112 ToF children undergoing radical open cardiac surgery using cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) were randomized to either a RIPC group (n = 55) or a control group (n = 57). The RIPC protocol consisted of three cycles of 5-min lower limb occlusion and 5-min reperfusion using a cuff-inflator. Serum inflammatory cytokines and cardiac injury markers were measured before surgery and after CPB. Right ventricle outflow tract (RVOT) tissues were collected during the surgery to assess hypoxia-inducible factor (Hif)-1α and other signalling proteins. Cardiac mitochondrial injury was assessed by electron microscopy. The primary results showed that the length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) was longer in the control group than in the RIPC group (52.30 ± 13.43 h vs. 47.55 ± 10.34 h, respectively, P = 0.039). Patients in the control group needed longer post-operative ventilation time compared to the RIPC group (35.02 ± 6.56 h vs. 31.96 ± 6.60 h, respectively, P = 0.016). The levels of post-operative serum troponin-T at 12 and 18 h, CK-MB at 24 h, as well as the serum h-FABP levels at 6 h, after CPB were significantly lower, which was coincident with significantly higher protein expression of cardiac Hif-1α, p-Akt, p-STAT3, p-STAT5, and p-eNOS and less vacuolization of mitochondria in the RIPC group compared to the control group.ConclusionIn ToF children undergoing open heart surgery, RIPC attenuates myocardial IRI and improves the short-term prognosis.
| S-EPMC6018784 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCardioprotective properties of volatile agents and of remote ischemic preconditioning have survival effects in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to confirm the beneficial effects of these strategies on survival in cardiac surgery, to evaluate which is the best strategy and if these strategies have additive or competitive effects.MethodsPertinent studies were independently searched in BioMedCentral, MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register (updated November 2013). A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. Four groups of patients were compared: total intravenous anesthesia (with or without remote ischemic preconditioning) and an anesthesia plan including volatile agents (with or without remote ischemic preconditioning). Mortality was the main investigated outcome.ResultsWe identified 55 randomized trials published between 1991 and 2013 and including 6,921 patients undergoing cardiac surgery. The use of volatile agents (posterior mean of odds ratio = 0.50, 95% CrI 0.28-0.91) and the combination of volatile agents with remote preconditioning (posterior mean of odds ratio = 0.15, 95% CrI 0.04-0.55) were associated with a reduction in mortality when compared to total intravenous anesthesia. Posterior distribution of the probability of each treatment to be the best one, showed that the association of volatile anesthetic and remote ischemic preconditioning is the best treatment to improve short- and long-term survival after cardiac surgery, suggesting an additive effect of these two strategies.ConclusionsIn patients undergoing cardiac surgery, the use of volatile anesthetics and the combination of volatile agents with remote preconditioning reduce mortality when compared to TIVA and have additive effects. It is necessary to confirm these results with large, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded trials comparing these different strategies in cardiac and non-cardiac surgery, to establish which volatile agent is more protective than the others and how to best apply remote ischemic preconditioning.
| S-EPMC4521933 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe neuroprotective effect of remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) in patients undergoing elective cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB)-assisted coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or valvular cardiac surgery remains unclear.MethodsA randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled superior clinical trial was conducted in patients undergoing elective on-pump coronary artery bypass surgery or valve surgery. Before anesthesia induction, patients were randomly assigned to RIPC (three 5-min cycles of inflation and deflation of blood pressure cuff on the upper limb) or the control group. The primary endpoint was the changes in S-100 calcium-binding protein β (S100-β) levels at 6 h postoperatively. Secondary endpoints included changes in Neuron-specific enolase (NSE), Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) levels.ResultsA total of 120 patients [mean age, 48.7 years; 36 women (34.3%)] were randomized at three cardiac surgery centers in China. One hundred and five patients were included in the modified intent-to-treat analysis (52 in the RIPC group and 53 in the control group). The primary result demonstrated that at 6 h after surgery, S100-β levels were lower in the RIPC group than in the control group (50.75; 95% confidence interval, 67.08 to 64.40 pg/ml vs. 70.48; 95% CI, 56.84 to 84.10 pg/ml, P = 0.036). Compared to the control group, the concentrations of S100-β at 24 h and 72 h and the concentration of NSE at 6 h, 24 h, and 72 h postoperatively were significantly lower in the RIPC group. However, neither the MMSE nor the MoCA revealed significant between-group differences in postoperative cognitive performance at 7 days, 3 months, and 6 months after surgery.ConclusionIn patients undergoing CPB-assisted cardiac surgery, RIPC attenuated brain damage as indicated with the decreased release of brain damage biomarker S100-β and NSE.Clinical trial registration[ClinicalTrials.gov], identifier [NCT01231789].
| S-EPMC9485807 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is limited evidence on the effect of remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) following non-cardiac surgery. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of RIPC on morbidity following intra-abdominal cancer surgery. We conducted a double blinded pilot randomised controlled trial that included 47 patients undergoing surgery for gynaecological, pancreatic and colorectal malignancies. The patients were randomized into an intervention (RIPC) or control group. RIPC was provided by intermittent inflations of an upper limb tourniquet. The primary outcome was feasibility of the study, and the main secondary outcome was postoperative morbidity including perioperative troponin change and the urinary biomarkers tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-2 and insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 7 (TIMP-2*IGFBP-7). The recruitment target was reached, and the protocol procedures were followed. The intervention group developed fewer surgical complications at 30 days (4.5% vs. 33%), 90 days (9.5% vs. 35%) and 6 months (11% vs. 41%) (adjusted p 0.033, 0.044 and 0.044, respectively). RIPC was a significant independent variable for lower overall postoperative morbidity survey (POMS) score, OR 0.79 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.99) and fewer complications at 6 months including pulmonary OR 0.2 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.92), surgical OR 0.12 (95% CI 0.007 to 0.89) and overall complications, OR 0.18 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.74). There was no difference in perioperative troponin change or TIMP2*IGFBP-7. Our pilot study suggests that RIPC may improve outcomes following intra-abdominal cancer surgery and that a larger trial would be feasible.
| S-EPMC8999621 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Multiple randomized controlled trials of remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) prior to cardiac surgery have failed to demonstrate clinical benefit. The aim of this updated meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of RIPC on outcomes following cardiac surgery.Searches of PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were performed for 1970 to December 13, 2015. Randomized controlled trials comparing RIPC with a sham procedure prior to cardiac surgery performed with cardiopulmonary bypass were assessed. All-cause mortality, acute kidney injury (AKI), and myocardial infarction were the primary outcomes of interest. We identified 21 trials that randomized 5262 patients to RIPC or a sham procedure prior to undergoing cardiac surgery. The majority of patients were men (72.6%) and the mean or median age ranged from 42.3 to 76.3 years. Of the 9 trials that evaluated mortality, 188 deaths occurred out of a total of 4210 randomized patients, with 96 deaths occurring in 2098 patients (4.6%) randomized to RIPC and 92 deaths occurring in 2112 patients (4.4%) randomized to a sham control procedure, demonstrating no significant reduction in all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.987; 95% CI, 0.653-1.492, P=0.95). Twelve studies evaluated AKI in 4209 randomized patients. In these studies, AKI was observed in 516 of 2091 patients (24.7%) undergoing RIPC and in 577 of 2118 patients (27.2%) randomized to a sham procedure. RIPC did not result in a significant reduction in AKI (RR, 0.839; 95% CI, 0.703-1.001 [P=0.052]). In 6 studies consisting of 3799 randomized participants, myocardial infarction occurred in 237 of 1891 patients (12.5%) randomized to RIPC and in 282 of 1908 patients (14.8%) randomized to a sham procedure, resulting in no significant reduction in postoperative myocardial infarction (RR, 0.809; 95% CI, 0.615-1.064 [P=0.13]). A subgroup analysis was performed a priori based on previous studies suggesting that propofol may mitigate the protective benefits of RIPC. Three studies randomized patients undergoing cardiac surgery to RIPC or sham procedure in the absence of propofol anesthesia. Most of these patients were men (60.3%) and the mean or median age ranged from 57.0 to 70.6 years. In this propofol-free subgroup of 434 randomized patients, 71 of 217 patients (32.7%) who underwent RIPC developed AKI compared with 103 of 217 patients (47.5%) treated with a sham procedure. In this cohort, RIPC resulted in a significant reduction in AKI (RR, 0.700; 95% CI, 0.527-0.930 [P=0.014]). In studies of patients who received propofol anesthesia, 445 of 1874 (23.7%) patients randomized to RIPC developed AKI compared with 474 of 1901 (24.9%) who underwent a sham procedure. The RR for AKI was 0.928 (95% CI, 0.781-1.102; P=0.39) for RIPC versus sham. There was no significant interaction between the two subgroups (P=0.098).RIPC does not reduce morbidity or mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. In the subgroup of studies in which propofol was not used, a reduction in AKI was seen, suggesting that propofol may interact with the protective effects of RIPC. Future studies should evaluate RIPC in the absence of propofol anesthesia.
| S-EPMC5523764 | biostudies-other