Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains a leading cause of death and morbidity, despite declining incidence and improved short-term outcome in many countries. Although mortality declines in developed countries with easy and fast access to optimized treatment, development of heart failure often remains a challenge in survivors and still approaches 10% at 1 year. Rapid admission and acute interventional treatment combined with modern antithrombotic pharmacologic therapy frequently establish complete reperfusion and acutely stabilize the patient, but the reperfusion itself adds further to the damage in the myocardium compromising the long-term outcome. Reperfusion injury is believed to be a significant—if not the dominant—contributor to the net injury resulting from STEMI and has become a major focus of research in recent years. Despite a plethora of pharmacological and mechanical interventions showing consistent reduction of reperfusion injury in experimental models, translation into a clinical setting has been challenging. In patients, attempts to modify reperfusion injury by pharmacological strategies have largely been unsuccessful, and focus is increasingly directed toward mechanical modalities. Remote ischemic conditioning of the heart is achieved by repeated brief interruption of the blood supply to a distant part of the body, most frequently the arm. At present, remote ischemic conditioning is the most promising adjuvant therapy to reduce reperfusion injury in patients with STEMI. In this review, we discuss the results of clinical trials investigating the effect of remote ischemic conditioning in patients admitted with STEMI and potential reasons for its apparent superiority to current pharmacologic adjuvant therapies.

Keywords

myocardial infarction reperfusion injury remote ischemic conditioning

Introduction

The injury caused by ischemia and reperfusion is the primary reason that cardiovascular disease remains a leading cause of death and disability.^1,2 For the last 2 decades, more people have died of coronary heart disease than any other cause of death and conditions involving ischemia–reperfusion syndromes. Hence, diseases such as myocardial infarction and stroke remain a dominant burden on public health worldwide.^3,4 Despite important advances in the handling and treatment of patients with acute ischemic conditions, including rapid referral, primary interventional therapy, and optimized medical treatment, substantial organ injury often occurs resulting in early and late morbidity and mortality.⁵

For patients admitted with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), early and successful restoration of myocardial reperfusion is the most effective strategy to reduce final infarct size and improve clinical outcome.⁶ However, reperfusion itself induces further myocardial damage, but the development of pharmacological therapies, so-called pharmacological conditioning, to counter the detrimental effects of reperfusion injury has so far been unsuccessful. Although investigation of infarct size modification in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) by adenosine (AMISTAD I and II trials) showed reduction in infarct size and improved outcome in a subgroup of patients,⁷ in most other pharmacological conditioning studies, from the first-generation large clinical trials such as testing the metabolic impact by glucose–insulin–potassium infusion (the CREATE-ECLA trial)⁸ and anti-inflammatory effects by pexelizumab (APEX-MI trial)⁹ to recent clinical trials investigating the effect of cyclosporine A¹⁰ and exenatide,^11,12 no convincing clinical effect has been demonstrated.

Another and arguably more effective means to protect the heart against reperfusion injury is by exposing it to brief episodes of nonlethal ischemia prior to the long-lasting ischemic event, so-called local ischemic preconditioning.¹³ For obvious reasons, local ischemic preconditioning is not directly relevant to patients with STEMI. Since the discovery that brief episodes of ischemia in a distant tissue induce a similar protection of the heart (remote ischemic conditioning [RIC])^14,15 and that this effect also occurs even when the stimulus is conducted during evolving myocardial infarction,¹⁶ clinical applicability has been achieved by inducing brief episodes of limb ischemia to patients admitted with STEMI, either during transfer (Figure 1) or immediately after arrival to the hospital.

Figure 1.

After telemedical diagnosis of STEMI and triage to the catheterization unit, remote ischemic conditioning is optimally performed during transport to the cardiac center. PCI indicates primary coronary intervention; STEMI, ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

Several clinical trials have studied the effect of RIC in patients admitted with STEMI for primary percutaneous intervention (pPCI)^17
∓19 or thrombolysis,²⁰ and most have shown beneficial effects of RIC, either demonstrating reduced myocardial injury¹⁷ or improved clinical outcome.²¹ Small clinical studies indicate that other mechanical interventions such as cooling²² and local ischemic postconditioning may also reduce myocardial injury in patients with STEMI,²³ but presently RIC appears to be the most attractive adjuvant therapy due to its low cost and easy applicability. In this review, we will discuss the results of trials investigating the effects of RIC in patients with STEMI.

The Development of RIC

In their seminal paper from 1986, Murry and colleagues demonstrated that myocardial infarct size in dogs after 40-minute occlusion of the circumflex artery and 4 days of reperfusion was reduced from 29% to 7% of the area at risk by local ischemic preconditioning through 4 times of 5-minute occlusion of the same coronary artery prior to the ischemic insult.¹³ Being cited more than 100 000 times, this discovery has defined research in cardioprotection for the last 30 years.

An important step toward clinical applicability was achieved when Przyklenk et al demonstrated that preconditioning 1 coronary territory in the heart protects the rest of the heart against a subsequent ischemic injury.¹⁴ Next, studies demonstrated that protection of the heart also occurs after exposing the gastrocnemius muscle, kidney, or limb to brief episodes of nonlethal ischemia,^15,24,25 remote ischemic preconditioning. Importantly, the remote ischemic stimulus protects also the heart when conducted during or immediately after cardiac ischemia (remote ischemic preconditioning and postconditioning),¹⁶ and the general term remote ischemic conditioning or RIC (with no indication of timing) is now predominantly used. Due to the easy application, conditioning through brief episodes of limb ischemia won most widespread use and today is almost synonymous with RIC.

In experimental studies, RIC has been shown to afford protection against ischemia–reperfusion in the liver,^26,27 lung,^28,29 kidney,³⁰ brain,³¹ and heart¹⁵ and against cardiopulmonary bypass–induced neural, pulmonary, and myocardial injury.³² From the site of the remote stimulus, through humoral³³ and neuronal^34,35 pathways, RIC activates several protective mechanisms in the target organ similar to those activated by local ischemic preconditioning. Furthermore, RIC modifies the systemic inflammatory response^36,37 and prevents endothelial dysfunction¹⁵ and platelet activation,³⁸ following ischemia–reperfusion injury.

Translation of RIC Into Clinical Use

The first clinical study investigating the effect of RIC in a clinical setting was conducted by Cheung et al who showed that RIC conducted prior to cardiac surgery for congenital structural heart disease reduced myocardial injury in children.³⁹

The observation in a porcine study that RIC also affords cardioprotection when conducted during ongoing myocardial ischemia¹⁶ prompted potential relevance for patients with STEMI.

Therefore, we conducted a randomized clinical trial (the CONDI-trial) to investigate the effect of RIC in patients with STEMI admitted for pPCI. A total of 333 patients were enrolled and randomized to either standard therapy or RIC + standard therapy. Remote ischemic conditioning intervention was initiated in the ambulance during transport to the interventional center using intermittent arm ischemia achieved by 4 cycles of alternating 5-minute inflation (200 mm Hg) followed by 5-minute deflation of a blood pressure cuff placed on the upper arm. We showed that RIC improves myocardial salvage index (0.75 in the RIC group vs 0.55 in the control group, P = .033) as measured by single-photon emission computed tomography.¹⁷ In a substudy, Munk et al showed that in patients with anterior infarcts, RIC improved ejection fraction.⁴⁰ Later, Sloth et al published 4-year follow-up data on our original study, showing that the improved myocardial salvage translates into clinical prognostic benefit, as the major adverse cardiac and cerebral event occurred for 17 (13.5%) patients in the RIC-treated group compared to 32 (25.6%) patients in the control group, yielding a hazard ratio of 0.49 (95% confidence interval: 0.27-0.89, P = .018). Furthermore, only 5 deaths (4%) occurred in the intervention group compared with 15 (12%) in the control group, yielding a hazard ratio 0.32 (95% confidence interval: 0.12-0.88, P = 0.027).²¹

Other Studies of RIC in Patients With STEMI

In a small but important study, Rentoukas et al showed that RIC increases the proportion of patients with STEMI achieving full ST-segment resolution after pPCI, indicating that RIC also improves microvascular perfusion after STEMI.¹⁸

Three independent studies subsequently showed that RIC reduced markers of myocardial injury (troponin T or creatine kinase–myocardial band) after STEMI,^20,41,42 and Eitel et al confirmed our finding of improved salvage afforded by RIC, in their study measured with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).⁴³

Notably, RIC also reduced myocardial injury in patients treated with thrombolysis for STEMI in a study conducted on Mauritius,²⁰ suggesting RIC may be beneficial even when reperfusion is not established by PCI, which extends its potential relevance to the large parts of the world with no access to pPCI.

However, a recent study by Verouhis et al found no effect of RIC on myocardial salvage as assessed by MRI and troponin release.⁴⁴ The authors used intermittent lower limb ischemia initiated after arrival to the catheterization laboratory. In most studies investigating the effect of RIC in patients with STEMI, RIC was performed on the upper limb. Although Crimi et al also used lower limb ischemia and did find protective effect of RIC (see Table 1), in our experience, it is difficult to induce consistent ischemia in the adult human leg through inflation of a blood pressure cuff around the thigh. Furthermore, Verouhis and colleagues also used a protocol of combined preconditioning and postconditioning adding up to a higher number of conditioning cycles, even ≥7 in a subgroup of patients, which could potentially lead to “hyperconditioning” as suggested by Whittaker and Przyklenk.⁴⁸ Together with a later timing, potentially not achieving the full effect of RIC if 3 to 4 cycles were not completed prior to establishment of reperfusion, these deviations may explain the absence of effect of RIC in the study by Verouhis.

Table 1.

Overview of Clinical Studies of Remote Ischemic Conditioning in Patients With STEMI Undergoing Reperfusion.

Study	No. of Patients (Control/RIC)	RIC Regimen	End Point	Outcome
Bøtker et al¹⁷	69/73	Upper limb; 4 cycles I/R (5/5 minutes)	Salvage index (SPECT)	20% increase in salvage index
Munk et al⁴⁰	110/108	Upper limb; 4 cycles I/R (5/5 minutes)	LVEF at 30 days	5% increase in LVEF in anterior infarcts
Rentoukas et al¹⁸	30/33	Upper limb; 3 cycles I/R (5/5 minutes)	ST-segment resolution	20% increase in patients achieving full ST-segment resolution
Crimi et al⁴²	50/50	Lower limb; 3 cycles I/R (5/5 minutes)	CK-MB (AUC 72 hours after PCI)	20% reduction in CK-MB release
Prunier et al⁴¹	17/18	Upper limb; 4 cycles I/R (5/5 minutes)	CK-MB (AUC 72 hours after PCI)	31% reduction in CK-MB release
Sloth et al²¹	167/166	Upper limb; 4 cycles I/R (5/5 minutes)	MACCE at 4 years	12% reduction in MACCE
Yamanaka et al⁴⁵	62/63	Upper limb; 3 cycles I/R (5/5 minutes)	Acute kidney injury (rise in creatinine)	72% reduction in acute kidney injury
Yellon et al²⁰	258/261	Upper limb; 4 cycles I/R (5/5 minutes)	TnT (AUC 24 hours after PCI)	17% reduction of TnT release
Eitel et al⁴³	232/232/232	Upper limb; 3 cycles I/R (5/5 minutes); + local post CON	Salvage index (MRI)	23% increase in salvage index
White et al¹⁹	40/43	Upper limb; 4 cycles I/R (5/5 minutes)	Myocardial edema (MRI)	27% reduction in myocardial edema
Olafiranye et al⁴⁶	92/127	Upper limb; 4 cycles I/R (5/5 minutes)	Acute kidney injury (rise in creatinine)	53% reduction in acute kidney injury
Verouhis et al 2016⁴⁴	46/47	Lower limb; 4+ cycles I/R (5/5 min); pre + post	Salvage index (MRI)	No effect
Lotfollahi et al⁴⁷	29/32	Upper limb; 3 cycles I/R (5/5 minutes)	Oxidative stress	100% increase in total antioxidative capacity

Abbreviations: AUC, area under the curve; CK-MB, creatine kinase–myocardial band; CON, conditioning; I/R, ischemia reperfusion; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; MACCE, major adverse cardiac and cerebral event; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PCI, percutaneous intervention; RIC, remote ischemic conditioning; SPECT, single-photon emission computed tomography; TnT, troponin T.

A potentially important effect of RIC is its protective effect on other organs during evolving myocardial infarction and the subsequent revascularization therapy. Of particular interest is acute kidney injury, which may occur from both hemodynamic instability and contrast use during pPCI. Yamanaka et al showed 72% reduction in the occurrence of acute kidney injury in RIC-treated patients with STEMI compared to controls.⁴⁷ This finding was confirmed in a recent retrospective study showing renal protection in patients with STEMI when RIC was conducted during interfacility helicopter transport in the United States.⁴⁵

Finally, Lotfollahi et al have showed that RIC also reduces markers of oxidative stress and increases total oxidative capacity in patients with STEMI.⁴⁶ Overall, 12 studies have provided evidence of a beneficial effect of RIC in patients with STEMI with a variety of end points and only 1 study showed no beneficial effect of RIC (see Table 1).

Meta-analyses of the above-mentioned and other studies seem to support that RIC reduces myocardial injury and improves clinical outcome in clinical situations at risk of myocardial ischemia/reperfusion damage, although these papers include both emergent and nonemergent settings.^49,50

Factors Influencing the Effect of RIC

Animal studies have suggested that a number of conditions such as high age, diabetes, and left ventricular hypertrophy attenuate or abolishe the effect of ischemic conditioning. We performed a post hoc analysis of risk factors and medication use in patients enrolled in the CONDI trial.⁵¹ We found no effect modification by diabetes, hypertension, gender, or age. Similarly, the use of β-blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and calcium channels blockers did not affect the efficacy of RIC. However, smoking seemed to attenuate the effect of RIC, whereas statin use may increase the effect. Propofol also seems to abolish the cardioprotection afforded by RIC but is rarely used in the setting of STEMI.

Present reperfusion therapy by pPCI is effective in the majority of patients with STEMI. However, some patients, predominantly those with large anterior infarcts, may develop heart failure due to myocardial injury and subsequent left ventricular remodeling months or even years after the infarct, despite optimal medical treatment. In addition to mortality reduction, RIC seems to improve clinical outcome by reduced postinfarction left ventricular dysfunction and heart failure.²¹ No serious adverse effects have been observed by RIC until now, and initiation of RIC should seem to be effective when applied in the ambulance before assessment of outcome is possible. Patients at risk of extensive myocardial injury and global tissue damage seem to be those who may benefit the most.¹⁷

Timing of the RIC procedure may influence its efficacy. The first window of protection by RIC lasts for 2 to 3 hours and onset appears to be instant, as RIC initiated immediately prior to revascularization reduces infarct size in patients with STEMI.⁴¹ Patients presenting with an AMI are recommended interventional or thrombolytic reperfusion within 12 hours of the onset of chest pain. Although infarct size is larger in patients presenting with symptoms >12 hours of duration than in early presenters after primary angioplasty for STEMI, substantial myocardial salvage can be obtained beyond the 12-hour limit, even when the infarct-related artery is totally occluded.^52,53 Interestingly, RIC also seems to attenuate the detrimental effect of system delay before pPCI in patients with STEMI with symptom onset of >12 hours, suggesting an extended window of opportunity for pPCI.⁵⁴ Please see a recent comprehensive review by Heusch and Rassaf for a more detailed discussion of the influence of timing in cardioprotective strategies.⁵⁵

Some patients presenting with an STEMI have already undergone spontaneous reperfusion prior to interventional reperfusion. Because RIC is designed to protect mainly against reperfusion injury, its efficacy is most pronounced in patients with totally occluded vessels prior to interventional reperfusion.¹⁷ However, patency status of the coronary arteries will remain unknown for the majority of patients with STEMI at the decision time of RIC institution. If future studies motivate implementation of RIC as an additional treatment modality beyond reperfusion therapy in patients with STEMI, this limitation should not detract any patient from RIC due to its safe and cheap nature.

In patients with STEMI, substantial collateralization is associated with improved clinical outcome.⁵⁶ Intuitively, this has been connected to reduced area-at-risk size and the evolving infarct. Hence, the extent of collateralization has also been thought to negatively influence the ability to demonstrate an effect of any novel cardioprotective strategy. However, consistent with previous findings,^57,58 Pryds et al demonstrated that area at risk did not differ between patients with and without coronary collateral blood flow to the infarct-related artery and that collateral blood flow rather increased myocardial salvage index in patients with STEMI undergoing pPCI.⁵⁹ Thus, the coronary collateral circulation may facilitate the delivery of circulating humoral cardioprotective factors generated during the RIC stimulus⁶⁰ and transported to the myocardium threatened by ischemia-reperfusion injury.

Preinfarction angina per se may be cardioprotective and improve outcome following AMI, predominantly when closely preceding the infarct.^61,62 The development of coronary collaterals⁶³ and activation of an inherent ischemic preconditioning-like effect⁶⁴ are potential underlying mechanisms. Although the development of functional collateral vessels presumably requires time,⁶⁵ a preconditioning effect would be almost immediate⁶⁰ and might interfere with RIC. Although results are not consistent,⁵⁷ we have not found an overall effect of preinfarction angina on myocardial salvage.⁵⁹ More importantly, however, preinfarction angina prior to the STEMI did not compromise the efficacy of RIC.

Purinergic P2Y inhibitors have infarct size–reducing effect in animal models. Their mechanisms of action seem not only dependent on the presence of platelets in the blood^66,67 but may also be mediated by activating the recognized conditioning pathway and depend on similar signaling components as conditioning. Adding ischemic postconditioning to the platelet inhibitor offered no additional protection to a rabbit heart.⁶⁸ Moreover, ticagrelor specifically increases adenosine availability by inhibiting adenosine reuptake via the equilibrative nucleoside transporter potentially triggering conditioning by this mechanism.^69,70 Because most clinical studies until now have been conducted with concurrent clopidogrel treatment, the clinical impact of any interaction with ticagrelor remains unknown.

Should RIC Be Continued/Repeated After pPCI?

Myocardial remodeling continues for several weeks after a myocardial infarction and involves inflammation, fibrosis, and rebuilding of vital myocardium. In a meticulous study of several different “chronical” conditioning protocols, Wei et al demonstrated that RIC repeated daily for 4 weeks after myocardial infarction protected against adverse left ventricular remodeling and increased survival in a rat model.⁷¹ Although a similar study has not been conducted in a clinical setting, a benefit of RIC may be amplified by repeated daily treatment after the index event. A clinical study clarifying potential additional protection of chronic RIC is clinically relevant and highly warranted.

Remote Ischemic Conditioning in Stroke and Other Acute Ischemia–Reperfusion Syndromes

As a clinical condition involving acute ischemia–reperfusion injury, stroke is the obvious parallel of myocardial infarction. It is appealing to think RIC may afford protection in patients with stroke similar to what has been shown in patients with STEMI. However, several factors challenge the use of RIC in stroke. Firstly, in the treatment of ischemic stroke, reperfusion is most frequently achieved through thrombolysis. Although thrombolytic therapy of stroke is frequently successful, the onset of reperfusion is unpredictable, making timing of the RIC procedure challenging even with proven efficacy in patients with STEMI.²⁰ Secondly, assessing the cerebroprotective effect of RIC (or any other adjuvant therapy) is far more challenging than measuring markers of myocardial infarction. Nevertheless, Hougaard et al demonstrated that RIC increased tissue survival and tended to improve some clinical outcome variables in patients admitted with ischemic stroke for thrombolytic therapy.⁷² Animal studies suggest that RIC may also afford organ protection in the setting of multi-trauma and hemorrhagic shock,⁷³ but this remains to be confirmed in clinical studies.

Can RIC Be Mimicked by a Drug?

The systemic effects of RIC have turned out to be much more complex than initially believed. Remote ischemic conditioning protects the target organ through a plethora of parallel intracellular and extracellular pathways, modifies inflammatory processes, reduces platelet activation, and affects endothelial function, all of which may indicate that this inherent protection system in mammalian species is a fundamental and complex part of the biological response to stress.^60,74 Recent studies suggest that microvesicles and microRNA play a controlling role in the “upstream” events following RIC,^75,76 but the identification of which microRNAs are involved and their individual importance remain to be determined.⁷⁷ Although biological insight into the mechanisms underlying the effects of RIC is increasing rapidly, a pharmacological replication of remote or local ischemic conditioning has not yet been developed. Future work should consider combination therapies or “upstream” intervention, which may mimic the signaling systems sufficiently to achieve clinically relevant organ protection comparable to the effects of remote and local ischemic conditioning. It is not unlikely, though, that RIC may prove too complex to be fully recapitulated by a single pharmacological intervention.

Conclusion and Potential of RIC in Patients With STEMI Undergoing Reperfusion

Although reperfusion therapy by pPCI is effective in the majority of patients with STEMI, some patients may develop heart failure due to extensive myocardial injury. Remote ischemic conditioning reduces cardiac injury after myocardial infarction in many experimental studies, and translation into clinical use has been mostly successful until now. ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction seems the ideal candidate to exploit the potential clinical profit of RIC. Still, it remains to be shown that the repeatedly observed effect on surrogate markers translates into improved clinical outcome. The result of the ongoing CONDI2-ERIC-PPCI study⁷⁸ investigating the effect of RIC in 5200 patients will hopefully provide an answer to whether it is time to introduce RIC as a standard adjuvant therapy to patients with STEMI in clinical practice and in the guidelines.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Danish Council for Independent Research (11-108354), Novo Nordisk Foundation, and Trygfonden.

Author Contributions

Hans Erik Bøtker and Michael Rahbek Schmidt contributed to conception or design, contributed to acquisition, analysis, or interpretation, drafted the manuscript, and critically revised the manuscript. Mathis Ersted Rasmussen contributed to conception or design and critically revised the manuscript. All authors gave final approval and agree to be accountable for all aspects of work ensuring integrity and accuracy.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Michael Rahbek Schmidt and Hans Erik Bøtker are shareholders in CellAegis Inc.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Murray

Lopez

. Alternative projections of mortality and disability by cause 1990-2020: Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet. 1997;349(9064):1498–1504.

Wang

Dwyer-Lindgren

Lofgren

. Age-specific and sex-specific mortality in 187 countries, 1970-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2012;380(9859):2071–2094.

Lloyd-Jones

Adams

Carnethon

. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2009 update: a report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Circulation. 2009;119(3):e21–e181.

Lloyd-Jones

Adams

Brown

. Executive summary: heart disease and stroke statistics—2010 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2010;121(7):948–954.

Chen

Hsieh

Dharmarajan

Masoudi

Krumholz

. National trends in heart failure hospitalization after acute myocardial infarction for Medicare beneficiaries: 1998-2010. Circulation. 2013;128(24):2577–2584.

Keeley

Boura

Grines

. Comparison of primary and facilitated percutaneous coronary interventions for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: quantitative review of randomised trials. Lancet. 2006;367(9510):579–588.

Kloner

Forman

Gibbons

Ross

Alexander

Stone

. Impact of time to therapy and reperfusion modality on the efficacy of adenosine in acute myocardial infarction: the AMISTAD-2 trial. Eur Heart J. 2006;27(20):2400–2405.

Mehta

Yusuf

Diaz

. Effect of glucose-insulin-potassium infusion on mortality in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the CREATE-ECLA randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2005;293(4):437–446.

Armstrong

Granger

. Pexelizumab and the APEX AMI trial. JAMA. 2007;297(17):1881–1882.

10.

Cung

Morel

Cayla

. Cyclosporine before PCI in patients with acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(11):1021–1031.

11.

Kyhl

Lønborg

Vejlstrup

. A post hoc analysis of long-term prognosis after exenatide treatment in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. EuroIntervention. 2016;12(4):449–455.

12.

Lønborg

Vejlstrup

Kelbaek

. Exenatide reduces reperfusion injury in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(12):1491–1499.

13.

Murry

Jennings

Reimer

. Preconditioning with ischemia: a delay of lethal cell injury in ischemic myocardium. Circulation. 1986;74(5):1124–1136.

14.

Przyklenk

Bauer

Ovize

Kloner

Whittaker

. Regional ischemic ‘preconditioning’ protects remote virgin myocardium from subsequent sustained coronary occlusion. Circulation. 1993;87(3):893–899.

15.

Kharbanda

Mortensen

White

. Transient limb ischemia induces remote ischemic preconditioning in vivo. Circulation. 2002;106(23):2881–2883.

16.

Schmidt

Smerup

Konstantinov

. Intermittent peripheral tissue ischemia during coronary ischemia reduces myocardial infarction through a KATP-dependent mechanism: first demonstration of remote ischemic perconditioning. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2007;292(4):H1883–H1890.

17.

Bøtker

Kharbanda

Schmidt

. 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. 2010;375(9716):727–734.

18.

Rentoukas

Giannopoulos

Kaoukis

. Cardioprotective role of remote ischemic periconditioning in primary percutaneous coronary intervention: enhancement by opioid action. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3(1):49–55.

19.

White

Frohlich

Sado

. Remote ischemic conditioning reduces myocardial infarct size and edema in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(1 pt B):178–188.

20.

Yellon

Ackbarkhan

Balgobin

. Remote ischemic conditioning reduces myocardial infarct size in STEMI patients treated by thrombolysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65(25):2764–2765.

21.

Sloth

Schmidt

Munk

. 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. 2014;35(3):168–175.

22.

Erlinge

Gotberg

Lang

. Rapid endovascular catheter core cooling combined with cold saline as an adjunct to percutaneous coronary intervention for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. The CHILL-MI trial: a randomized controlled study of the use of central venous catheter core cooling combined with cold saline as an adjunct to percutaneous coronary intervention for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(18):1857–1865.

23.

Bell

Bøtker

Carr

. 9th Hatter Biannual Meeting: position document on ischaemia/reperfusion injury, conditioning and the ten commandments of cardioprotection. Basic Res Cardiol. 2016;111(4):41.

24.

Birnbaum

Hale

Kloner

. Ischemic preconditioning at a distance: reduction of myocardial infarct size by partial reduction of blood supply combined with rapid stimulation of the gastrocnemius muscle in the rabbit. Circulation. 1997;96(5):1641–1646.

25.

Kerendi

Kin

Halkos

. Remote postconditioning. Brief renal ischemia and reperfusion applied before coronary artery reperfusion reduces myocardial infarct size via endogenous activation of adenosine receptors. Basic Res Cardiol. 2005;100(5):404–412.

26.

Lai

Chang

Chen

Tsai

. Transient limb ischemia induces remote preconditioning in liver among rats: the protective role of heme oxygenase-1. Transplantation. 2006;81(9):1311–1317.

27.

Kanoria

Jalan

Davies

. Remote ischaemic preconditioning of the hind limb reduces experimental liver warm ischaemia-reperfusion injury. Br J Surg. 2006;93(6):762–768.

28.

Jan

Chen

Tsai

Huang

. Limb ischemic preconditioning mitigates lung injury induced by haemorrhagic shock/resuscitation in rats. Resuscitation. 2011;82(6):760–766.

29.

Harkin

Barros D’Sa

McCallion

Hoper

Campbell

. Ischemic preconditioning before lower limb ischemia–reperfusion protects against acute lung injury. J Vasc Surg. 2002;35(6):1264–1273.

30.

Ali

Callaghan

Lim

. Remote ischemic preconditioning reduces myocardial and renal injury after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: a randomized controlled trial. Circulation. 2007;116(11 suppl):I98–I105.

31.

Hahn

Manlhiot

Schmidt

Nielsen

Redington

. Remote ischemic per-conditioning: a novel therapy for acute stroke? Stroke. 2011;42(10):2960–2962.

32.

Kharbanda

Konstantinov

. Remote ischaemic preconditioning protects against cardiopulmonary bypass-induced tissue injury: a preclinical study. Heart. 2006;92(10):1506–1511.

33.

Shimizu

Tropak

Diaz

. Transient limb ischaemia remotely preconditions through a humoral mechanism acting directly on the myocardium: evidence suggesting cross-species protection. Clin Sci (Lond). 2009;117(5):191–200.

34.

Lim

Yellon

Hausenloy

. The neural and humoral pathways in remote limb ischemic preconditioning. Basic Res Cardiol. 2010;105(5):651–655.

35.

Loukogeorgakis

Panagiotidou

Broadhead

. Remote ischemic preconditioning provides early and late protection against endothelial ischemia-reperfusion injury in humans: role of the autonomic nervous system. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46(3):450–456.

36.

Shimizu

Saxena

Konstantinov

. Remote ischemic preconditioning decreases adhesion and selectively modifies functional responses of human neutrophils. J Surg Res. 2010;158(1):155–161.

37.

Konstantinov

Arab

Kharbanda

. The remote ischemic preconditioning stimulus modifies inflammatory gene expression in humans. Physiol Genom. 2004;19(1):143–150.

38.

Pedersen

Cruden

Schmidt

. Remote ischemic preconditioning prevents systemic platelet activation associated with ischemia-reperfusion injury in humans. J Thromb Haemost. 2011;9(2):404–407.

39.

Cheung

Kharbanda

Konstantinov

. Randomized controlled trial of the effects of remote ischemic preconditioning on children undergoing cardiac surgery: first clinical application in humans. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47(11):2277–2282.

40.

Munk

Andersen

Schmidt

. 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. 2010;3(6):656–662.

41.

Prunier

Angoulvant

Saint Etienne

. 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. 2014;109(2):400.

42.

Crimi

Pica

Raineri

. 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. 2013;6(10):1055–1063.

43.

Eitel

Stiermaier

Rommel

. Cardioprotection by combined intrahospital remote ischaemic perconditioning and postconditioning in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the randomized LIPSIA CONDITIONING trial. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(44):3049–3057.

44.

Verouhis

Sorensson

Gourine

. Effect of remote ischemic conditioning on infarct size in patients with anterior ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Am Heart J. 2016;181:66–73.

45.

Yamanaka

Kawai

Miyoshi

. Remote ischemic preconditioning reduces contrast-induced acute kidney injury in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Cardiol. 2015;178:136–141.

46.

Olafiranye

Ladejobi

Wayne

. Renal protection using remote ischemic peri-conditioning during inter-facility helicopter transport of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a retrospective study. J Interv Cardiol. 2016;29(6):603–611.

47.

Lotfollahi

Mohammadi

Ghaffari

. Effect of remote ischemic post-conditioning on oxidative stress in blood of STEMI patients treated with primary angioplasty. J Cardiovasc Thorac Res. 2016;8(3):113–118.

48.

Whittaker

Przyklenk

. From ischemic conditioning to ‘hyperconditioning’: clinical phenomenon and basic science opportunity. Dose Response. 2014;12(4):650–663.

49.

Le Page

Bejan-Angoulvant

Angoulvant

Prunier

. Remote ischemic conditioning and cardioprotection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Basic Res Cardiol. 2015;110(2):11.

50.

Sharma

Marsh

Cunniffe

. From protecting the heart to improving athletic performance—the benefits of local and remote ischaemic preconditioning. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther. 2015;29(6):573–588.

51.

Sloth

Schmidt

Munk

. Impact of cardiovascular risk factors and medication use on the efficacy of remote ischaemic conditioning: post hoc subgroup analysis of a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2015;5(4):e006923.

52.

Busk

Kaltoft

Nielsen

. Infarct size and myocardial salvage after primary angioplasty in patients presenting with symptoms for <12 h vs. 12-72 h. Eur Heart J. 2009;30(11):1322–1330.

53.

Schömig

Mehilli

Antoniucci

. Mechanical reperfusion in patients with acute myocardial infarction presenting more than 12 hours from symptom onset: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2005;293(23):2865–2872.

54.

Pryds

Terkelsen

Sloth

. Remote ischaemic conditioning and healthcare system delay in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Heart. 2016;102(13):1023–1028.

55.

Heusch

Rassaf

. Time to give up on cardioprotection? A critical appraisal of clinical studies on ischemic pre-, post-, and remote conditioning. Circ Res. 2016;119(5):676–695.

56.

Meier

Hemingway

Lansky

. The impact of the coronary collateral circulation on mortality: a meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(5):614–621.

57.

Lonborg

Kelbaek

Vejlstrup

. Influence of pre-infarction angina, collateral flow, and pre-procedural TIMI flow on myocardial salvage index by cardiac magnetic resonance in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;13(5):433–443.

58.

Ortiz-Perez

Lee

Meyers

. Determinants of myocardial salvage during acute myocardial infarction: evaluation with a combined angiographic and CMR myocardial salvage index. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;3(5):491–500.

59.

Pryds

Bøttcher

Sloth

. Influence of preinfarction angina and coronary collateral blood flow on the efficacy of remote ischaemic conditioning in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction: post hoc subgroup analysis of a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2016;6(11):e013314.

60.

Heusch

Bøtker

Przyklenk

Redington

Yellon

. Remote ischemic conditioning. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65(2):177–195.

61.

Schmidt

Horvath-Puho

Pedersen

Sørensen

Bøtker

. Time-dependent effect of preinfarction angina pectoris and intermittent claudication on mortality following myocardial infarction: a Danish nationwide cohort study. Int J Cardiol. 2015;187:462–469.

62.

Herrett

Bhaskaran

Timmis

. Association between clinical presentations before myocardial infarction and coronary mortality: a prospective population-based study using linked electronic records. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(35):2363–2371.

63.

Fujita

Sasayama

Ohno

Nakajima

Asanoi

. Importance of angina for development of collateral circulation. Br Heart J. 1987;57(2):139–143.

64.

Kloner

Shook

Przyklenk

. Previous angina alters in-hospital outcome in TIMI 4. A clinical correlate to preconditioning? Circulation. 1995;91(1):37–45.

65.

Zimarino

D’Andreamatteo

Waksman

Epstein

De Caterina

. The dynamics of the coronary collateral circulation. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2014;11(4):191–197.

66.

Bell

Sivaraman

Kunuthur

. Cardioprotective properties of the platelet P2Y12 receptor inhibitor, cangrelor: protective in diabetics and reliant upon the presence of blood. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther. 2015;29(5):415–418.

67.

Cohen

Yang

White

. Cangrelor-mediated cardioprotection requires platelets and sphingosine phosphorylation. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther. 2016;30(2):229–232.

68.

Yang

Liu

Cui

. Platelet P2Y(1)(2) blockers confer direct postconditioning-like protection in reperfused rabbit hearts. J Cardiovasc Pharm Ther. 2013;18(3):251–262.

69.

Cattaneo

Schulz

Nylander

. Adenosine-mediated effects of ticagrelor: evidence and potential clinical relevance. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(23):2503–2509.

70.

Nylander

Schulz

. Effects of P2Y12 receptor antagonists beyond platelet inhibition—comparison of ticagrelor with thienopyridines. Br J Pharmacol. 2016;173(7):1163–1178.

71.

Wei

Xin

. Repeated remote ischemic postconditioning protects against adverse left ventricular remodeling and improves survival in a rat model of myocardial infarction. Circ Res. 2011;108(10):1220–1225.

72.

Hougaard

Hjort

Zeidler

. Remote ischemic perconditioning as an adjunct therapy to thrombolysis in patients with acute ischemic stroke: a randomized trial. Stroke. 2014;45(1):159–167.

73.

Sun

. Remote ischemic pre- and postconditioning improve postresuscitation myocardial and cerebral function in a rat model of cardiac arrest and resuscitation. Crit Care Med. 2015;43:e12–e18.

74.

Kleinbongard

Skyschally

Heusch

. Cardioprotection by remote ischemic conditioning and its signal transduction. Pflugers Arch. 2017;469(2):159–181.

75.

Giricz

Varga

Baranyai

. Cardioprotection by remote ischemic preconditioning of the rat heart is mediated by extracellular vesicles. J Mol Cell Cardiol. 2014;68:75–78.

76.

Rohailla

Gelber

. MicroRNA-144 is a circulating effector of remote ischemic preconditioning. Basic Res Cardiol. 2014;109(5):423.

77.

Przyklenk

. microRNA-144: the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of remote ischemic conditioning? Basic Res Cardiol. 2014;109(5):429.

78.

Hausenloy

Kharbanda

Rahbek Schmidt

. Effect of remote ischaemic conditioning on clinical outcomes in patients presenting with an ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(29):1846–1848.

Remote Ischemic Conditioning for Patients With STEMI

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

The Development of RIC

Translation of RIC Into Clinical Use

Other Studies of RIC in Patients With STEMI

Factors Influencing the Effect of RIC

Should RIC Be Continued/Repeated After pPCI?

Remote Ischemic Conditioning in Stroke and Other Acute Ischemia–Reperfusion Syndromes

Can RIC Be Mimicked by a Drug?

Conclusion and Potential of RIC in Patients With STEMI Undergoing Reperfusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Author Contributions

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

References