Remote ischemic preconditioning for cardioprotection in elective inpatient abdominal surgery - a randomized controlled trial

Efficacy of remote ischaemic preconditioning on outcomes following non-cardiac non-vascular surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) has been investigated as a simple intervention to potentially mitigate the ischaemic effect of the surgical insult and reduce postoperative morbidity. This review systematically evaluates the effect of RIPC on morbidity, including duration of hospital stay and parameters reflective of cardiac, renal, respiratory, and hepatic dysfunction following non-cardiac non-vascular (NCNV) surgery.

METHODS

The electronic databases PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from their inception date to November 2021. Studies investigating the effect of local preconditioning or postconditioning were excluded. Methodological quality and risk of bias were determined according to the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2). Calculation of the odds ratios and a random effects model was used for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences or standardised mean differences as appropriate were used for continuous outcomes. The primary outcomes of interest were cardiac and renal morbidity, and the secondary outcomes included other organ function parameters and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

A systematic review of the published literature identified 36 randomised controlled trials. There was no significant difference in postoperative troponin or acute kidney injury. RIPC was associated with lower postoperative serum creatinine (9 studies, 914 patients, mean difference (MD) - 3.81 µmol/L, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 6.79 to - 0.83, p = 0.01, I² = 5%) and lower renal stress biomarker (neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL), 5 studies, 379 patients, standardized mean difference (SMD) - 0.66, 95% CI - 1.27 to - 0.06, p = 0.03, I² = 86%). RIPC was also associated with improved oxygenation (higher P_aO₂/F_iO₂, 5 studies, 420 patients, MD 51.51 mmHg, 95% CI 27.32 to 75.69, p < 0.01, I² = 89%), lower biomarker of oxidative stress (malondialdehyde (MDA), 3 studies, 100 patients, MD - 1.24 µmol/L, 95% CI - 2.4 to - 0.07, p = 0.04, I² = 91%)) and shorter length of hospital stay (15 studies, 2110 patients, MD - 0.99 days, 95% CI - 1.75 to - 0.23, p = 0.01, I² = 88%).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis did not show an improvement in the primary outcomes of interest with the use of RIPC. RIPC was associated with a small improvement in certain surrogate parameters of organ function and small reduction in hospital length of stay. Our results should be interpreted with caution due to the limited number of studies addressing individual outcomes and the considerable heterogeneity identified.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019129503.

Remote ischaemic preconditioning versus no remote ischaemic preconditioning for vascular and endovascular surgical procedures

BACKGROUND

Despite 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 METHODS

The 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 CRITERIA

We 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 ANALYSIS

We 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 RESULTS

We 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.

Hydrogen sulfide restores cardioprotective effects of remote ischemic preconditioning in aged rats via HIF-1α/Nrf2 signaling pathway

The present study explored the therapeutic potential of hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) in restoring aging-induced loss of cardioprotective effect of remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) along with the involvement of signaling pathways. The left hind limb was subjected to four short cycles of ischemia and reperfusion (IR) in young and aged male rats to induce RIPC. The hearts were subjected to IR injury on the Langendorff apparatus after 24 h of RIPC. The measurement of lactate dehydrogenase, creatine kinase and cardiac troponin served to assess the myocardial injury. The levels of H₂S, cystathionine β-synthase (CBS), cystathionine γ-lyase (CSE), nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (Nrf2), and hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF-1α) were also measured. There was a decrease in cardioprotection in RIPC-subjected old rats in comparison to young rats along with a reduction in the myocardial levels of H₂S, CBS, CSE, HIF-1α, and nuclear: cytoplasmic Nrf2 ratio. Supplementation with sodium hydrogen sulfide (NaHS, an H₂S donor) and l-cysteine (H₂S precursor) restored the cardioprotective actions of RIPC in old hearts. It increased the levels of H₂S, HIF-1α, and Nrf2 ratio without affecting CBS and CSE. YC-1 (HIF-1α antagonist) abolished the effects of NaHS and l-cysteine in RIPC-subjected old rats by decreasing the Nrf2 ratio and HIF-1α levels, without altering H₂S.The late phase of cardioprotection of RIPC involves an increase in the activity of H₂S biosynthetic enzymes, which increases the levels of H₂S to upregulate HIF-1α and Nrf2. H₂S has the potential to restore aging-induced loss of cardioprotective effects of RIPC by upregulating HIF-1α/Nrf2 signaling.

The effect of remote ischaemic preconditioning on postoperative cardiac and inflammatory biomarkers in pancreatic surgery: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT03460938.

Effect of remote ischaemic preconditioning on mortality and morbidity after non-cardiac surgery: meta-analysis

Background

Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) has been shown to have a protective role on vital organs exposed to reperfusion injury. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects of non-invasive RIPC on clinical and biochemical outcomes in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery

Methods

A systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases was carried out in February 2020. RCTs investigating the effect of non-invasive RIPC in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery were included. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (TSAs) were performed on cardiovascular events, acute kidney injury, and short- and long-term mortality.

Results

Some 43 RCTs including 3660 patients were included. The surgical areas comprised orthopaedic, vascular, abdominal, pulmonary, neurological, and urological surgery. Meta-analysis showed RIPC to be associated with fewer cardiovascular events in non-cardiac surgery (13 trials, 1968 patients, 421 events; odds ratio (OR) 0.68, 95 per cent c.i. 0.47 to 0.96; P = 0.03). Meta-analyses of the effect of RIPC on acute kidney injury (12 trials, 1208 patients, 211 events; OR 1.14, 0.78 to 1.69; P = 0.50; I² = 9 per cent), short-term mortality (7 trials, 1239 patients, 65 events; OR 0.65, 0.37 to 1.12; P = 0.12; I² = 0 per cent), and long-term mortality (4 trials, 1167 patients, 9 events; OR 0.67, 0.18 to 2.55; P = 0.56; I² = 0 per cent) showed no significant differences for RIPC compared with standard perioperative care in non-cardiac surgery. However, TSAs showed that the required information sizes have not yet been reached.

Conclusion

Application of RIPC to non-cardiac surgery might reduce cardiovascular events, but not acute kidney injury or all-cause mortality, but currently available data are inadequate to confirm or reject an assumed intervention effect.

Remote Ischemic Preconditioning in Non-cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) may mitigate physiological stress related to surgery. There is no clear consensus on conduct of RIPC studies, or whether it is effective. The aim of this study was to (i) assess delivery of RIPC, (ii) identify reported outcomes, (iii) measure effect on key clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD:42020180725). EMBASE and Medline databases were searched, and results screened by two reviewers. Full-texts were assessed for eligibility by two reviewers. Data extracted were methods of RIPC and outcomes reported. Meta-analysis of key clinical events was performed using a Mantel-Haenszel random effects model. The TIDieR framework was used to assess intervention reporting, and Cochrane risk of bias tool was used for all studies included.

RESULTS

Searches identified 25 studies; 25 were included in the narrative analysis and 18 in the meta-analysis. RIPC was frequently performed by occluding arm circulation (15/25), at 200 mmHg (9/25), with three cycles of 5 min ischemia and 5 min of reperfusion (16/25). No study fulfilled all 12 TIDieR items (mean score 7.68). Meta-analysis showed no benefit of RIPC on MI (OR 0.71 95% CI 0.48-1.04, I2 = 0%), mortality (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.31-1.01, I2 = 0%), or acute kidney injury (OR 0.72 95% CI 0.48-1.08).

CONCLUSIONS

RIPC could be standardized as 200 mmHg pressure in 3 × 5 min on and off cycles. The signal of benefit should be explored in a larger well-designed randomized trial.