4.6 Article

Remote ischemic preconditioning reduces contrast-induced acute kidney injury in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A randomized controlled trial

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 178, Issue -, Pages 136-141

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.10.135

Keywords

Myocardial infarction; Contrast media; Renal failure; Percutaneous coronary intervention

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Contrast medium-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) is a cardiovascular complication after myocardial infarction treated with emergency percutaneous coronary intervention. The aim of this randomized, sham-controlled trial was to evaluate the impact of remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) on CI-AKI in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction who received emergency primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods and results: Patients with a suspected ST-elevation myocardial infarction were randomly assigned at a 1: 1 ratio to receive percutaneous coronary intervention eitherwith (n = 63) or without (n = 62) RIPC (intermittent arm ischemia through three cycles of 5 min of inflation and 5 min of deflation of a blood pressure cuff). A total of 47 RIPC patients and 47 control patients met all study criteria. The primary endpoint was the incidence of CI-AKI, which was defined as an increase in serum creatinine >0.5 mg/dL or N25% over the baseline value 48-72 h after administration of contrast medium. The incidence of CI-AKI was 10% (n = 5) in the RIPC group and 36% (n = 17) in the control group (p = 0.003). The odds ratio of CI-AKI in patients who received RIPC was 0.18 (95% confidence interval: 0.05-0.64; p = 0.008). Conclusions: In patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction, RIPC before percutaneous coronary intervention reduced the incidence of CI-AKI. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available