Abstract
Background and Aim: Remote ischemic conditioning is a procedure purported to reduce the ischemic injury of an organ. This study aimed to explore the efficiency and safety of remote ischemic conditioning in patients with acute ischemic stroke. We hypothesized that remote ischemic conditioning administered from the first day of hospital admission would improve the infarct volume and clinical outcome at 180 days.Material and Methods: We performed a unicentric double-blind randomized controlled trial. We included all patients consecutively admitted to an Emergency Neurology Department with acute ischemic stroke, ineligible for reperfusion treatment, up to 24 hours from onset. All subjects were assigned to receive secondary stroke prevention treatment along with remote ischemic conditioning on the non-paretic upper limb during the first 5 days of hospitalization, twice daily - a blood pressure cuff placed around the arm was inflated to 20 mmHg above the systolic blood pressure (up to 180 mmHg) in the experimental group and 30 mmHg in the sham group. The primary outcome was the difference in infarct volume (measured on brain CT scan) at 180 days compared to baseline, whereas the secondary outcomes included differences in clinical scores (NIHSS, mRS, IADL, ADL) and cognitive/mood changes (MoCA, PHQ-9) at 180 days compared to baseline.Results: We enrolled 40 patients; the mean age was 65 years and 60% were men. Subjects in the interventional group had slightly better recovery in terms of disability, as demonstrated by the differences in disability scores between admission and 6 months (e.g., the median difference score for Barthel was −10 in the sham group and −17.5 in the interventional group, for ADL −2 in the sham group and −2.5 in the interventional group), as well as cognitive performance (the median difference score for MoCA was −2 in the sham group and −3 in the interventional group), but none of these differences reached statistical significance. The severity of symptoms (median difference score for NIHSS = 5 for both groups) and depression rate (median difference score for PHQ-9 = 0 for both groups) were similar in the two groups. The median difference between baseline infarct volume and final infarct volume at 6 months was slightly larger in the sham group compared to the interventional group (p = 0.4), probably due to an initial larger infarct volume in the former.Conclusion: Our results suggest that remote ischemic conditioning might improve disability and cognition. The difference between baseline infarct volume and final infarct volume at 180 days was slightly larger in the sham group.
Highlights
Stroke is one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity worldwide, with significant global burden and costs [1]
Our study aims to explore the efficiency and safety of Remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) applied to the non-paretic upper limb in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) ineligible for reperfusion treatment
Because of logistic problems related to the current SARS-CoV2 pandemic, one of the hospitals designed for enrollment was not available, we could not include all the patients required by sample size estimation
Summary
Stroke is one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity worldwide, with significant global burden and costs [1]. In Romania the treatment of AIS remains extremely limited, mainly because patients do not recognize stroke symptoms/signs and arrive late to the hospital, missing the reperfusion therapeutic window. In these cases, there is a great need for neuroprotective interventions in order to improve the outcome of AIS. In AIS, single or repeated cycles of transient limb(s) ischemia followed by reperfusion are employed, usually with a blood pressure cuff inflated to a level above the systolic blood pressure for a few minutes, followed by deflation This stems from the hypothesis that RIC could prevent cerebral damage after AIS by preventing/reducing the ischemia-reperfusion injury (neuroprotection). We hypothesized that remote ischemic conditioning administered from the first day of hospital admission would improve the infarct volume and clinical outcome at 180 days
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.