Evidence Hub

Randomized controlled trial of remote ischaemic conditioning in ST-elevation myocardial infarction as adjuvant to primary angioplasty (RIC-STEMI)

A. Gaspar, A. Lourenço, M. Pereira, P. Azevedo, R. Roncon-Albuquerque, J. Marques, A. Leite-Moreira

Basic Research in Cardiology, 2018

258 participants · 160 citations

Abstract

To test whether remote ischaemic conditioning (RIC) as adjuvant to standard of care (SOC) would prevent progression towards heart failure (HF) after ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Single-centre parallel 1:1 randomized trial (computerized block-randomization, concealed allocation) to assess superiority of RIC (3 cycles of intermittent 5 min lower limb ischaemia) over SOC in consecutive STEMI patients (NCT02313961, clinical trials.gov). From 258 patients randomized to RIC or SOC, 9 and 4% were excluded because of unconfirmed diagnosis and previously unrecognized exclusion criteria, respectively. Combined primary outcome of cardiac mortality and hospitalization for HF was reduced in RIC compared with SOC (n = 231 and 217, respectively; HR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.15–0.78) as well as each outcome in isolation. No difference was found in serum troponin I levels between groups. Median and maximum follow-up time were 2.1 and 3.7 years, respectively. In-hospital HF (RR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.47–0.98), need for diuretics (RR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.48–0.97) and inotropes and/or intra-aortic balloon pump (RR = 0.17, 95% CI 0.04–0.76) were decreased in RIC. On planned 12 months follow-up echocardiography (n = 193 and 173 in RIC and SOC, respectively) ejection fraction (EF) recovery was enhanced in patients presenting with impaired left ventricular (LV) function (10% absolute difference in median EF compared with SOC; P < 0.001). In addition to previously reported improved myocardial salvage…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 258 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free