ArticleAnnals of vascular surgery2019
Rationale and Design for the Remote Ischemic Preconditioning for Carotid Endarterectomy Trial.
Article in Annals of vascular surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Remote ischaemic preconditioning versus no remote ischaemic preconditioning for vascular and endovascular surgical procedures.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Research progress on the interaction between multiple organ-brain axes and perioperative neurocognitive disorders: a narrative review.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile the perioperative stroke rate after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is low, "silent" microinfarctions identified by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are common and have been correlated with postoperative neurocognitive decline. Our study will investigate the role of remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) as a potential neuroprotective mechanism. RIPC is a well-tolerated stimulus that, through neuronal and humoral pathways, generates a systemic environment of greater resistance to subsequent ischemic insults. We hypothesized that patients undergoing RIPC before CEA will have improved postoperative neurocognitive scores compared with those of patients undergoing standard care.
methodsPatients undergoing CEA will be randomized 1:1 to RIPC or standard clinical care. Those randomized to RIPC will undergo a standard protocol of 4 cycles of RIPC. Each RIPC cycle will involve 5 min of forearm ischemia with 5 min of reperfusion. Forearm ischemia will be induced by a blood pressure cuff inflated to 200 mm Hg or at least 15 mm Hg higher than the systolic pressure if it is >185 mm Hg. This will occur after anesthesia induction and during incision/dissection but before manipulation or clamping of the carotid; thus, patients will be blinded to their assignment. Before carotid endarterectomy, all patients will undergo baseline neurocognitive testing in the form of a Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) Toolbox. MoCA testing only will be conducted on postoperative day 1 in the hospital. The full neurocognitive testing battery will again be conducted at 1-month follow-up in the office. Changes from baseline will be compared between arms at the follow-up time points. Assuming no drop-ins or dropouts and a 10% loss to follow-up, we would need a sample size of 43 patients for 80% power per treatment arm. The primary endpoint, change in MoCA scores, will be analyzed using a random effects model, and secondary outcomes will be analyzed using either linear or logistic regression where appropriate.
conclusionsRIPC, if shown to be effective in protecting patients from neurocognitive decline after CEA, represents a safe, inexpensive, and easily implementable method of neuroprotection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.