Cargando…

Remote ischaemic conditioning reduces infarct size in animal in vivo models of ischaemia-reperfusion injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS: The potential of remote ischaemic conditioning (RIC) to ameliorate myocardial ischaemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) remains controversial. We aimed to analyse the pre-clinical evidence base to ascertain the overall effect and variability of RIC in animal in vivo models of myocardial IRI. Furtherm...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bromage, Daniel I., Pickard, Jack M. J., Rossello, Xavier, Ziff, Oliver J., Burke, Niall, Yellon, Derek M., Davidson, Sean M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5408955/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28028069
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cvr/cvw219
_version_ 1783232388690608128
author Bromage, Daniel I.
Pickard, Jack M. J.
Rossello, Xavier
Ziff, Oliver J.
Burke, Niall
Yellon, Derek M.
Davidson, Sean M.
author_facet Bromage, Daniel I.
Pickard, Jack M. J.
Rossello, Xavier
Ziff, Oliver J.
Burke, Niall
Yellon, Derek M.
Davidson, Sean M.
author_sort Bromage, Daniel I.
collection PubMed
description AIMS: The potential of remote ischaemic conditioning (RIC) to ameliorate myocardial ischaemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) remains controversial. We aimed to analyse the pre-clinical evidence base to ascertain the overall effect and variability of RIC in animal in vivo models of myocardial IRI. Furthermore, we aimed to investigate the impact of different study protocols on the protective utility of RIC in animal models and identify gaps in our understanding of this promising therapeutic strategy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Our primary outcome measure was the difference in mean infarct size between RIC and control groups in in vivo models of myocardial IRI. A systematic review returned 31 reports, from which we made 22 controlled comparisons of remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPreC) and 21 of remote ischaemic perconditioning and postconditioning (RIPerC/RIPostC) in a pooled random-effects meta-analysis. In total, our analysis includes data from 280 control animals and 373 animals subject to RIC. Overall, RIPreC reduced infarct size as a percentage of area at risk by 22.8% (95% CI 18.8–26.9%), when compared with untreated controls (P < 0.001). Similarly, RIPerC/RIPostC reduced infarct size by 22.2% (95% CI 17.1–25.3%; P < 0.001). Interestingly, we observed significant heterogeneity in effect size (T2 = 92.9% and I2 = 99.4%; P < 0.001) that could not be explained by any of the experimental variables analysed by meta-regression. However, few reports have systematically characterized RIC protocols, and few of the included in vivo studies satisfactorily met study quality requirements, particularly with respect to blinding and randomization. CONCLUSIONS: RIC significantly reduces infarct size in in vivo models of myocardial IRI. Heterogeneity between studies could not be explained by the experimental variables tested, but studies are limited in number and lack consistency in quality and study design. There is therefore a clear need for more well-performed in vivo studies with particular emphasis on detailed characterization of RIC protocols and investigating the potential impact of gender. Finally, more studies investigating the potential benefit of RIC in larger species are required before translation to humans.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5408955
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54089552017-05-03 Remote ischaemic conditioning reduces infarct size in animal in vivo models of ischaemia-reperfusion injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis Bromage, Daniel I. Pickard, Jack M. J. Rossello, Xavier Ziff, Oliver J. Burke, Niall Yellon, Derek M. Davidson, Sean M. Cardiovasc Res Original Articles AIMS: The potential of remote ischaemic conditioning (RIC) to ameliorate myocardial ischaemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) remains controversial. We aimed to analyse the pre-clinical evidence base to ascertain the overall effect and variability of RIC in animal in vivo models of myocardial IRI. Furthermore, we aimed to investigate the impact of different study protocols on the protective utility of RIC in animal models and identify gaps in our understanding of this promising therapeutic strategy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Our primary outcome measure was the difference in mean infarct size between RIC and control groups in in vivo models of myocardial IRI. A systematic review returned 31 reports, from which we made 22 controlled comparisons of remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPreC) and 21 of remote ischaemic perconditioning and postconditioning (RIPerC/RIPostC) in a pooled random-effects meta-analysis. In total, our analysis includes data from 280 control animals and 373 animals subject to RIC. Overall, RIPreC reduced infarct size as a percentage of area at risk by 22.8% (95% CI 18.8–26.9%), when compared with untreated controls (P < 0.001). Similarly, RIPerC/RIPostC reduced infarct size by 22.2% (95% CI 17.1–25.3%; P < 0.001). Interestingly, we observed significant heterogeneity in effect size (T2 = 92.9% and I2 = 99.4%; P < 0.001) that could not be explained by any of the experimental variables analysed by meta-regression. However, few reports have systematically characterized RIC protocols, and few of the included in vivo studies satisfactorily met study quality requirements, particularly with respect to blinding and randomization. CONCLUSIONS: RIC significantly reduces infarct size in in vivo models of myocardial IRI. Heterogeneity between studies could not be explained by the experimental variables tested, but studies are limited in number and lack consistency in quality and study design. There is therefore a clear need for more well-performed in vivo studies with particular emphasis on detailed characterization of RIC protocols and investigating the potential impact of gender. Finally, more studies investigating the potential benefit of RIC in larger species are required before translation to humans. Oxford University Press 2017-03 2016-12-17 /pmc/articles/PMC5408955/ /pubmed/28028069 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cvr/cvw219 Text en © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Bromage, Daniel I.
Pickard, Jack M. J.
Rossello, Xavier
Ziff, Oliver J.
Burke, Niall
Yellon, Derek M.
Davidson, Sean M.
Remote ischaemic conditioning reduces infarct size in animal in vivo models of ischaemia-reperfusion injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Remote ischaemic conditioning reduces infarct size in animal in vivo models of ischaemia-reperfusion injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Remote ischaemic conditioning reduces infarct size in animal in vivo models of ischaemia-reperfusion injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Remote ischaemic conditioning reduces infarct size in animal in vivo models of ischaemia-reperfusion injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Remote ischaemic conditioning reduces infarct size in animal in vivo models of ischaemia-reperfusion injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Remote ischaemic conditioning reduces infarct size in animal in vivo models of ischaemia-reperfusion injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort remote ischaemic conditioning reduces infarct size in animal in vivo models of ischaemia-reperfusion injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5408955/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28028069
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cvr/cvw219
work_keys_str_mv AT bromagedanieli remoteischaemicconditioningreducesinfarctsizeinanimalinvivomodelsofischaemiareperfusioninjuryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT pickardjackmj remoteischaemicconditioningreducesinfarctsizeinanimalinvivomodelsofischaemiareperfusioninjuryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT rosselloxavier remoteischaemicconditioningreducesinfarctsizeinanimalinvivomodelsofischaemiareperfusioninjuryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT ziffoliverj remoteischaemicconditioningreducesinfarctsizeinanimalinvivomodelsofischaemiareperfusioninjuryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT burkeniall remoteischaemicconditioningreducesinfarctsizeinanimalinvivomodelsofischaemiareperfusioninjuryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT yellonderekm remoteischaemicconditioningreducesinfarctsizeinanimalinvivomodelsofischaemiareperfusioninjuryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT davidsonseanm remoteischaemicconditioningreducesinfarctsizeinanimalinvivomodelsofischaemiareperfusioninjuryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis