AIM To study whether remote ischemic preconditioning(RIPC) has an impact on clinical outcomes, such as post-operative atrial fibrillation(POAF).METHODS This was a prospective, single-center, single-blinded,randomized ...AIM To study whether remote ischemic preconditioning(RIPC) has an impact on clinical outcomes, such as post-operative atrial fibrillation(POAF).METHODS This was a prospective, single-center, single-blinded,randomized controlled study. One hundred and two patients were randomized to receive RIPC(3 cycles of 5 min ischemia and 5 min reperfusion in the upper arm after induction of anesthesia) or no RIPC(control). Primary outcome was POAF lasting for five minutes or longer during the first seven days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, incidence of inpatient mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. RESULTS POAF occurred at a rate of 54% in the RIPC group and 41.2% in the control group(P = 0.23). No statistically significant differences were noted in secondary outcomes between the two groups. CONCLUSION This is the first study in the United States to suggest that RIPC does not reduce POAF in patients with elective or urgent cardiac surgery. There were no differences in adverse effects in either group. Further studies are required to assess the relationship between RIPC and POAF.展开更多
文摘AIM To study whether remote ischemic preconditioning(RIPC) has an impact on clinical outcomes, such as post-operative atrial fibrillation(POAF).METHODS This was a prospective, single-center, single-blinded,randomized controlled study. One hundred and two patients were randomized to receive RIPC(3 cycles of 5 min ischemia and 5 min reperfusion in the upper arm after induction of anesthesia) or no RIPC(control). Primary outcome was POAF lasting for five minutes or longer during the first seven days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, incidence of inpatient mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. RESULTS POAF occurred at a rate of 54% in the RIPC group and 41.2% in the control group(P = 0.23). No statistically significant differences were noted in secondary outcomes between the two groups. CONCLUSION This is the first study in the United States to suggest that RIPC does not reduce POAF in patients with elective or urgent cardiac surgery. There were no differences in adverse effects in either group. Further studies are required to assess the relationship between RIPC and POAF.
