Evidence Hub

Remote ischemic conditioning reduces adverse events in patients with acute ischemic stroke complicating acute myocardial infarction: a randomized controlled trial

Sijie Li, Xiurong Xing, Lanjing Wang, Jia-Li Xu, Changhong Ren, Yalin Li, Jing Wang, Zhi Liu et al.

Critical Care, 2024

40 participants · 15 citations

Abstract

Background Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) complicating an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is not uncommon, but can severely worsen the clinical prognosis. This study aimed to investigate whether remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) could provide clinical benefits to patients with AIS complicating AMI. Methods Subjects with AIS complicating AMI were recruited in this double-blind, randomized, controlled trial; assigned to the RIC and sham groups; and respectively underwent twice daily RIC and sham RIC for 2 weeks. All subjects received standard medical therapy. The primary endpoint was the rate of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) within 3 months after enrollment. MACCEs comprise of death from all causes, unstable anginas, AMI, acute ischemic strokes, and transient ischemic attacks. Results Eighty subjects were randomly assigned; 37 patients in the RIC group and 40 patients in the sham-RIC group completed the 3-month follow-up and were included in the final analysis. Both RIC and sham RIC procedures were well tolerated. At 3-month follow-up, 11 subjects (29.7%) in the RIC group experienced MACCEs compared to 21 (52.5%) in the sham group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.396; 95% confidence interval, 0.187–0.838; adjusted p < 0.05). Six subjects (16.2%) in the RIC group had died at the 3-month follow up, significantly lower than the 15 (37.5%) deaths in the sham group (adjusted HR 0.333; 95% CI 0.126–0.881; p = 0.027). Seventeen subjects (45.9%) in the RIC group and 6…

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: 40 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