Trial reportPloS one2019
Effect of remote ischemic preconditioning on hemostasis and fibrinolysis in head and neck cancer surgery: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effects of Remote Ischemic Preconditioning on the Inflammatory Cytokine Response to Free Flap Head and Neck Reconstruction: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Microsurgery · 2026Trial
- Impact of limb ischemic preconditioning on the incidence of vein thrombosis in patients with peripherally inserted central catheter.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2024Trial
- Implementation of In-house Computer-aided Design and Manufacturing for Accelerated Free Fibula Flap Reconstruction of Mandibular Defects in Cancer Patients.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Efficacy of remote ischaemic preconditioning on outcomes following non-cardiac non-vascular surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2023Review
- Remote Ischemic Preconditioning in Microsurgical Head and Neck Reconstruction: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2020Article
- Remote ischemic preconditioning does not influence lectin pathway protein levels in head and neck cancer patients undergoing surgery.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this randomized controlled trial was to investigate if remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) reduced platelet aggregation and increased fibrinolysis in cancer patients undergoing surgery and thereby reduced the risk of thrombosis. MATERIALS AND
methodsHead and neck cancer patients undergoing tumor resection and microsurgical reconstruction were randomized 1:1 to RIPC or sham intervention. RIPC was administered intraoperatively with an inflatable tourniquet by four cycles of 5-min upper extremity occlusion and 5-min reperfusion. The primary endpoint was collagen-induced platelet aggregation measured with Multiplate as area-under-the-curve on the first postoperative day. Secondary endpoints were markers of primary hemostasis, secondary hemostasis, and fibrinolysis. Clinical data on thromboembolic and bleeding complications were prospectively collected at 30-day follow-up. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed.
resultsSixty patients were randomized to RIPC (n = 30) or sham intervention (n = 30). No patients were lost to follow-up. The relative mean [95% confidence interval] collagen-induced platelet aggregation was 1.26 [1.11;1.40] in the RIPC group and 1.17 [1.07;1.27] in the sham group on the first postoperative day reported as ratios compared with baseline (P = 0.30). Median (interquartile range) 50% fibrin clot lysis time was 517 (417-660) sec in the RIPC group and 614 (468-779) sec in the sham group (P = 0.25). The postoperative pulmonary embolism rate did not differ between groups (P = 1.0).
conclusionsRIPC did not influence hemostasis and fibrinolysis in head and neck cancer patients undergoing surgery. RIPC did not reduce the rate of thromboembolic complications.
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.