Abstract
Effects of remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients remain conflicting. We performed this meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the benefits of the RIC in patients with AMI. Potentially relevant RCTs were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, VIP, CNKI, and Wanfang database until November 2016. RCTs evaluating RIC using intermittent limb ischemia-reperfusion in AMI patients were included. Thirteen RCTs were identified and analyzed. Meta-analysis showed that RIC significantly reduced the area under the curve (AUC) of creatine kinase-myocardial band (CK-MB) (standardized mean difference [SMD] −0.29; 95% confidence intervals [CI] −0.44 to −0.14; P = 0.0002) and AUC of troponin T (SMD −0.22; 95% CI −0.37 to −0.08; P = 0.003). Risk ratio (RR) for ≥70% ST-segment resolution favored RIC group than the control group (RR 1.39; 95% CI 1.03–1.86; P = 0.03). RIC also significantly reduced all-cause mortality (RR 0.33; 95%CI 0.17–0.64; P = 0.001). Subgroup analyses on the CK-MB AUC and ST-segment resolution ≥70% rate showed that the effects of RIC appeared to be affected by the limb used, duration of RIC, and clinical setting. RIC may offer cardioprotective effects by improving ST-segment resolution and reducing the infarct size in AMI patients.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and thrombolysis are well established reperfusion strategies in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Despite timely reperfusion approaches, the morbidity and mortality of AMI remain higher. Early reperfusion of occluded artery of myocardium is considered the most effective methods to minimize infarct sizes. However, abrupt restoration of blood flow may cause myocardial ischemia–reperfusion injury, leading to enlarge the infarct size1. Currently, there are no effective therapeutic interventions against myocardial reperfusion injury2.
Remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) induced by ischemia in a distant organ is a promising approach in the prevention of myocardial ischemia–reperfusion injury3. There are an increasing number of clinical trials evaluating cardioprotective effects of the RIC in AMI patients. A number of studies have demonstrated the cardioprotective effects of RIC in terms of improved myocardial perfusion and reduced infarct size in patients undergoing primary PCI4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 or thrombolysis13,14,15,16 with conflicting findings. Furthermore, no previous meta-analysis has specifically focused on the cardioprotective effects of RIC in patients with AMI.
Hence, we aimed to evaluate the possible cardioprotective effects of RIC induced by intermittent limb ischemia–reperfusion in patients with AMI by conducting a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs).
Results
Literature search and study characteristics
The initial literature search produced 927 potential records. After reviewing the titles and abstracts, 874 records were removed. A total of 53 potentially eligible full-text articles were retrieved for the eligibility. After application of our predefined inclusion criteria, 13 articles4,6,7,8,9,10,12,13,14,15,16,17,18 were eventually included in the quantitative meta-analysis (Fig. 1). Tables 1 and 2 summarizes the characteristics and demographic data of the included trials. Of the 13 trials, 880 patients were randomized to RIC and 876 patients were allocated to the controls. Eight trials4,6,7,8,9,10,12,18 were performed in patients undergoing primary PCI, and 5 trials13,14,15,16,17 were conducted in patients receiving thrombolysis. All the eligible trials were published between 2006 and 2016. The sample size of the individual trials ranged from 35 to 519. RIC was performed by inflating a blood-pressure cuff placed on the arm in 9 trials, whereas 4 trials8,9,17,18 selected the leg. Two trials6,7 had less than a 30-minute duration of RIC and others had 30 minutes or over. Risk of bias of the included trials is shown in the Fig. 2.
Infarct size as estimated by CK-MB and CK release
Data about RIC on infarct size as estimated by CK-MB AUC were available in 4 trials8,9,10,16. As shown in Fig. 3A, RIC was associated with a significant reduction in the CK-MB AUC (SMD −0.29; 95% CI −0.44 to −0.14; P = 0.0002) in a fixed-effect model, with no evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 0%; P = 0.56). Sensitivity analysis indicated that the omission of anyone trial at each time did not obviously change the pooled SMD and 95% CI. RIC significant reduced the peak CK-MB levels (SMD −2.37; 95% CI −3.93 to −0.81; P = 0.003) in 3 trials10,15,17 in a random effect model, with evidence of significant heterogeneity (I2 = 94%; P < 0.001). (Fig. 3B). Two trials14,15 reported data on peak CK release. As shown in Fig. 3C, RIC was also associated with a significant reduction in peak CK (SMD −0.38; 95% CI −0.62 to −0.13; P = 0.003) compared with control group in a fixed-effect model, with no evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 0%; P = 0.49).
Infarct size as estimated by troponin T and troponin I release
Three trials12,16,18 reported troponin T AUC as outcome. As shown in Fig. 4A, RIC significantly reduced troponin T AUC (SMD −0.22; 95% CI −0.37 to −0.08; P = 0.003) compared with control group in a fixed-effect model, with no evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 0%; P = 0.75). Peak troponin T data were reported in 2 trials4,18 and another 2 trials6,17 provided peak troponin I release data. However, there were no significant differences in peak troponin T (SMD −0.30; 95% CI −1.00 to 0.40; P = 0.40; Fig. 4B) and peak troponin I (SMD −1.08; 95% CI −2.22 to 0.07; P = 0.07; Fig. 4C) release between the RIC and the control group.
Myocardial reperfusion injury as estimated by ST-segment resolution
Data about RIC on ST-segment resolution ≥70% were available in 5 trials4,8,9,13,14. As shown in Fig. 5A, the pooled RR for ≥70% ST-segment resolution favored RIC group (RR 1.39; 95% CI 1.03–1.86; P = 0.03) than the control group in a random effect model, with evidence of substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 62%; P = 0.03). In addition, the pooled RR was 1.25 (95% CI 1.09–1.44; P = 0.001) when we changed to a random-effect model. Effect of RIC on ST-segment resolution >50% was reported in two trials7,8. As shown in Fig. 5B, the pooled RR for ≥50% ST-segment resolution favored RIC group (RR 1.56; 95% CI 1.18–2.08; P = 0.002) than the control group in a fixed-effect model, with no evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 0%; P = 0.42). The pooled RR was 1.51 (95% CI 1.15–1.97; P = 0.003) when we changed to a random effect model.
All-cause mortality
Data about RIC on all-cause mortality were available in 3 trials8,11,15. As shown in Fig. 5C, RIC was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (RR 0.33; 95%CI 0.17–0.64; P = 0.001) in a fixed-effect model during the longest follow-up. There was no evidence of significant heterogeneity (I2 = 0%; P = 1.00).
Subgroup analyses
Table 3 presents the detailed results of subgroup analysis. The effect of RIC on CK-MB AUC was stronger in patients undergoing PCI and RIC of the leg subgroups. RIC had a stronger effect on the rate of ST-segment resolution ≥70% in the leg (RR 2.36) than the arm (RR 1.16). Rate of ST-segment resolution ≥70% was significant in the patients treated with thrombolytic and RIC duration ≥30 min subgroups. However, the effects of RIC on ST-segment resolution ≥70% rate were not significant in patients undergoing PCI (RR 1.63; 95% CI 0.81–3.30; P = 0.17).
Discussion
RIC is an easily feasible, well tolerated, and inexpensive technique19. A well-designed meta-analysis has evaluated the protective effects of RIC on myocardial injury and clinical outcomes20. However, there is high heterogeneity in the studied population, including ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction/urgent PCI, elective PCI, cardiac surgery, congenital heart disease repair, or coronary artery bypass graft. Moreover, this meta-analysis did not particularly address the cardioprotective effects of RIC on the AMI patients undergoing thrombolysis.
To the best of our knowledge, our meta-analysis specially focused on the cardioprotective effects of RIC induced by intermittent limb ischemia–reperfusion in AMI patients. Our meta-analysis of 13 RCTs involving patients with AMI treated by primary PCI or thrombolysis revealed that RIC induced by intermittent limb ischemia–reperfusion could limit the infarct size as estimated by CK-MB AUC, peak CK-MB release, and troponin T AUC. Moreover, RIC attenuated the myocardial reperfusion injury as estimated by improvement in ST-segment resolution rate.
Troponin was commonly used as a sensitive biomarker for early myocardial injury. In our pooled analysis, RIC significantly reduced troponin T AUC. However, no significant differences were observed between RIC and control group in terms of peak levels of troponin T or troponin I release. These findings may be explained by lack of statistical power due to small sample sizes included in the analysis.
Subgroup analysis showed that on the CK-MB AUC and ST-segment resolution ≥70% rate showed that the effects of RIC appeared to be affected by the limb used, duration of RIC, and clinical setting. RIC appeared to have a pronounced effect on the CK-MB AUC in patients undergoing primary PCI than thrombolysis (SMD −0.46 vs. −0.23). This finding may be explained by type of cardiac intervention may have different impacts on myocardium, and PCI itself may cause a higher release of cardiac biomarkers. ST-segment resolution has been recognized as a marker of efficient microvascular reperfusion. Resolution of ST-segment deviation after reperfusion is associated with better outcome after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction21. By contrast, rate of ST-segment resolution ≥70% was significant in the patients treated with thrombolytic but not in patients undergoing PCI. However, interpretation of our findings should be cautioned due to the small number of trials in the stratified analysis.
This simple intervention is easily applied in AMI patients and may have the potential to reduce cardiac morbidity and mortality. Despite RIC could attenuate cardiac ischemic biomarker release, the effect of RIC on clinical endpoints is conflicting. Our pooled result showed that RIC was associated with a significant 67% reduction in all-cause mortality. However, this finding should be interpreted with caution because the patient numbers were relatively small as well as individual event numbers were low.
There is no standard protocol to induce RIC. Different protocols of RIC may have different cardioprotective effects22. RIC stimulus can be applied prior to the intervention, during ischemia, or after blood flow restoration. The timing and site could have potentially affected the cardioprotective effects of RIC. Loukogeorgakis et al. has demonstrated a dose-response protective effect with regard to number of cycles of RIC23. In order to achieve the maximal protective effect of RIC, sufficient threshold stimulus should be reached. Our subgroup analyses indicated that the effects of RIC on ST-segment resolution ≥70% rate were only statically significant in the RIC duration ≥30 min or by the lower limb subgroups. According to these findings, a RIC protocol of at least 3 cycles of 5 min ischemia and 5 min reperfusion (a total duration ≥30 min) particularly in the low limb is recommended.
Several potential limitations should be noted. First, this meta-analysis was not based on patient-level data. The potential impact of individual patient data including age, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidaemia or medications cannot be excluded. Second, infarct size was determined at different time points with a certain degree of clinical heterogeneity. Third, subgroup analysis results were based on the limited number of trials and the small sample size, so these results should be further validated by more well-designed trials. Fourth, apart from all-cause mortality, we did not assess other clinical endpoints because they were only reported in a minority of trials; however, CK-MB or troponin24, and ST-segment resolution25,26 as surrogate indicators can strongly predict clinical prognosis24. Fifth, we did not conduct the Begg’s and Egger’s tests to evaluate publication bias because the included trials were less than the recommended arbitrary minimum number. Finally, this meta-analysis could not determine the optimal protocol of RIC in AMI patients.
In conclusion, RIC induced by intermittent limb ischemia–reperfusion appears to reduce the infarct sizes (determined by AUC CK-MB and troponin T), myocardial reperfusion injury (estimated by ST-segment resolution), and all-cause mortality in AMI patients. However, these conclusions may be not reliable due to insufficient number of trials and the small sample size. More well-designed trials are needed to confirm the cardioprotective effects of RIC in clinical practice.
Methods
Search strategy
The present meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis’ (PRISMA) guidelines27. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, VIP, CNKI, and Wanfang database were searched for studies that evaluated the benefits of RIC using intermittent limb ischemia-reperfusion in patients with AMI. The following search terms were used: (RIC OR remote ischemic/ischaemic preconditioing OR remote ischemic/ischaemic perconditioning OR remote ischemic/ischaemic postconditioning AND myocardial infarction OR AND thrombolysis OR percutaneous coronary intervention OR coronary intervention AND randomized controlled trials OR RCTs. The latest update for literature research was done on November 28, 2016. Additional possible relevant trials were retrieved through a manual search of reference of the included articles.
Study selection
Trials were considered eligible if they satisfied the following inclusion criteria: (1) RCTs comparing RIC versus no conditioning in patients with AMI; (2) patients were treated by primary PCI or thrombolysis; (3) RIC was induced by intermittent limb ischemia–reperfusion; and (4) trials at least reported one of the following outcome measures, including enzymatic myocardial infarction size as assessed by serum peak creatine kinase (CK), peak creatine kinase-myocardial band (CK-MB), CK-MB area under the curve (AUC) as well as troponin I, troponin T or troponin T AUC, electrocardiographic ST-segment resolution (≥50% or %70%), and all-cause mortality during the follow-up period. In addition, for the multiple publications from the same population, we chose the article with the complete data. Trials were excluded when: (1) trials consisted of no-AMI patients; (2) trials without reporting any of the outcomes interesting; and (3) non-randomized trials.
Data extraction and quality assessment
Two investigators (CF Man and DD Gong) independently collected data from the included trials. Any disagreements between two reviewers were resolved by consensus. The extracted data included: the first author’s surname, year of publication, patients’ characteristics, RIC protocol, and outcome measures. For any missing or unclear data, we contacted the correspondence author by e-mail or telephone. The methodological quality of trials was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool of RCTs28, and grouped as low risk of bias, high risk of bias or unclear risk of bias.
Data analysis and synthesis
All analyses were conducted using STATA statistical software version 12.0. The pooled effect sizes were calculated comparing the RIC to without conditioning, and summarized as a risk ratio (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous data and standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous data. If continuous data were reported as median ± interquartile range (IQR), the mean and standard deviation (SD) were estimated using the median and the estimator SD = IQR/1.3528. Statistical heterogeneity across trials was evaluated using the Cochran’s Q test and I2 statistic. A P-value of Cochran’s Q test <0.10 or I2 statistic ≥50% represented significant heterogeneity. A random-effects model was selected when significant heterogeneity was observed; otherwise, a fixed effect model was used29. Subgroup analyses were performed by clinical setting (PCI vs. thrombolysis) and limb used (arm vs. leg). Sensitivity analysis was performed by sequentially deleting anyone study at each turn or replaced by the opposite statistical model to test the reliability of the pooled effect sizes.
Additional Information
How to cite this article: Man, C. et al. Meta-analysis of remote ischemic conditioning in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Sci. Rep. 7, 43529; doi: 10.1038/srep43529 (2017).
Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
Yellon, D. M. & Hausenloy, D. J. Myocardial reperfusion injury. N Engl J Med 357, 1121–35 (2007).
Schmidt, M. R., Pryds, K. & Bøtker, H. E. Novel adjunctive treatments of myocardial infarction. World J Cardiol 6, 434–43 (2014).
Kloner, R. A. Remote Ischemic Conditioning: Its Benefits and Limitations. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther 21, 219–21 (2016).
Botker, H. E. et al. Remote ischaemic conditioning before hospital admission, as a complement to angioplasty, and effect on myocardial salvage in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a randomised trial. Lancet 375, 727–34 (2010).
Munk, K. et al. Remote Ischemic Conditioning in Patients With Myocardial Infarction Treated With Primary Angioplasty: Impact on Left Ventricular Function Assessed by Comprehensive Echocardiography and Gated Single-Photon Emission CT. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 3, 656–62 (2010).
Rentoukas, I. et al. Cardioprotective role of remote ischemic periconditioning in primary percutaneous coronary intervention: enhancement by opioid action. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 3, 49–55 (2010).
Wu, W. L. et al. Intervention of limb ischemic postconditioning on myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury in primary percutaneous coronary intervention. J Clinic Cardiol 27, 186–9 (2011).
Crimi, G. et al. Remote ischemic post-conditioning of the lower limb during primary percutaneous coronary intervention safely reduces enzymatic infarct size in anterior myocardial infarction: a randomized controlled trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 6, 1055–63 (2013).
Wang, N. et al. Myocardial protection of remote ischemic postconditioning during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao 46, 838–43 (2014).
Prunier, F. et al. The RIPOST-MI study, assessing remote ischemic perconditioning alone or in combination with local ischemic postconditioning in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Basic Res Cardiol 109, 400 (2014).
Sloth, A. D. et al. Improved long-term clinical outcomes in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing remote ischaemic conditioning as an adjunct to primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Eur Heart J 35, 168–75 (2014).
White, S. K. et al. Remote ischemic conditioning reduces myocardial infarct size and edema in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 8, 178–88 (2015).
Yang, D. C., Li, Y. & Hou, B. Effects of non-invasive limb ischemia ischemic conditioning on arrhythmias in patients with acute myocardial infarction after thrombolysis. Chin J Postgrad Med 29, 61–3 (2006).
Zhang, W., Hou, B. & Yang, D. C. The protective effects of non-wound legs ischemic postconditioning on patients with ischemia/reperfusion myocardial injury. China Medical Herald 6, 13–5 (2009).
Ye, Z. Y., Xu, Z. B. & Chen, X. B. Application of myocardial ischemic preconditioning in the protection of myocardial ischemic injury. Jilin Medical Journal 34, 4239 (2013).
Yellon, D. M. et al. Remote Ischemic Conditioning Reduces Myocardial Infarct Size in STEMI Patients Treated by Thrombolysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 65, 2764–5 (2015).
Shu, C. F. et al. Efficacy of remote ischemic postconditioning combined with Edaravone for patients with myocardial ischemia-reperfusion after acute myocardial infarction. J Chongqing Med Univ 41 (2016).
Verouhis, D. et al. Effect of remote ischemic conditioning on infarct size in patients with anterior ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Am Heart J 181, 66–73 (2016).
Heusch, G., Botker, H. E., Przyklenk, K., Redington, A. & Yellon, D. Remote ischemic conditioning. J Am Coll Cardiol 65, 177–95 (2015).
Le Page, S., Bejan-Angoulvant, T., Angoulvant, D. & Prunier, F. Remote ischemic conditioning and cardioprotection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Basic Res Cardiol 110, 11 (2015).
de Lemos, J. A. et al. ST-segment resolution and infarct-related artery patency and flow after thrombolytic therapy. Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 14 investigators. Am J Cardiol 85, 299–304 (2000).
Johnsen, J. et al. The remote ischemic preconditioning algorithm: effect of number of cycles, cycle duration and effector organ mass on efficacy of protection. Basic Res Cardiol 111, 10 (2016).
Loukogeorgakis, S. P. et al. Transient limb ischemia induces remote preconditioning and remote postconditioning in humans by a K(ATP)-channel dependent mechanism. Circulation 116, 1386–95 (2007).
Chia, S. et al. Utility of cardiac biomarkers in predicting infarct size, left ventricular function, and clinical outcome after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 1, 415–23 (2008).
Brodie, B. R. et al. Relation between electrocardiographic ST-segment resolution and early and late outcomes after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 95, 343–8 (2005).
Verouden, N. J. et al. Early ST-segment recovery after primary percutaneous coronary intervention accurately predicts long-term prognosis after acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J 159, 1005–11 (2010).
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. & Altman, D. G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151, 264–9, W64 (2009).
Higgins, J. P. T. & Green, S.e. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.(accessed 1 March, 2016).
Higgins, J. P., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J. & Altman, D. G. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Bmj 327, 557–60 (2003).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Jiangsu Provincial Key&D special Fund (BE2015666).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
C.F. Man and D.D. Gong made the literature research, extracted data, and evaluated the quality. Y.J. Zhou drafted the manuscript and performed the statistical analysis. Y. Fan designed the study, interpreted the results, and revised the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
About this article
Cite this article
Man, C., Gong, D., Zhou, Y. et al. Meta-analysis of remote ischemic conditioning in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Sci Rep 7, 43529 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep43529
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep43529
This article is cited by
-
The Infarct-Limiting Effect of Remote Ischemic Conditioning in Rats Is Not Affected by Aspirin
Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy (2023)
-
Induced neuroprotection by remote ischemic perconditioning as a new paradigm in ischemic stroke at the acute phase, a systematic review
BMC Neurology (2020)
-
The release of cardioprotective humoral factors after remote ischemic preconditioning in humans is age- and sex-dependent
Journal of Translational Medicine (2018)
-
Proteomics/phosphoproteomics of left ventricular biopsies from patients with surgical coronary revascularization and pigs with coronary occlusion/reperfusion: remote ischemic preconditioning
Scientific Reports (2017)
-
New and revisited approaches to preserving the reperfused myocardium
Nature Reviews Cardiology (2017)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.