Remote ischaemic conditioning for myocardial infarction or elective PCI: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised trials

Abstract

Background:

The efficacy of remote ischaemic conditioning in clinical trials of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or elective percutaneous coronary intervention is controversial. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse whether remote ischaemic conditioning reduces myocardial damage in those patients.

Methods:

We searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science from inception until December 2017 for randomised clinical trials evaluating remote ischaemic conditioning versus a control group. Two independent reviewers extracted data of 23 trials (2118 patients with STEMI; 2048 patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention) which were meta-analysed using random-effects models.

Results:

Remote ischaemic conditioning reduced infarct size in STEMI patients when assessed by imaging (mean difference of infarct size as percentage of left ventricle −2.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) –4.37 to −0.48; P=0.01; I²=44%; n=925) or biomarkers related to myocardial injury (peak values of cardiac biomarker release reported as standardised mean difference −0.19, 95% CI −0.37 to −0.02; P=0.03; I²=58%; n=1483) and increased myocardial salvage index (mean difference 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.13; P=0.02; I²=49%; n= 636). Left ventricular ejection fraction was increased when assessed during the first days after STEMI (mean difference 1.53, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.83; P=0.02; I²=28%; n=1192). Remote ischaemic conditioning had no influence on biomarker values after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (standardised mean difference 0.06, 95% CI −0.17 to 0.30; P=0.59).

Conclusions:

Despite a statistically significant reduction of myocardial damage in STEMI patients, the magnitude of the reduction was small and a significant impact on clinical events is unlikely. With respect to elective percutaneous coronary intervention, remote ischaemic conditioning had no influence on myocardial injury and its use is not supported by our analysis.