ArticleJournal of human hypertension2021
Reduced effect of ischemic preconditioning against endothelial ischemia-reperfusion injury with cardiovascular risk factors in humans.
Article in Journal of human hypertension, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Immediate Increase in the Root Mean Square of Successive Differences after Three Bouts of Remote Ischemic Preconditioning: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Article
- A Single Bout of Remote Ischemic Preconditioning Suppresses Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury in Asian Obese Young Men.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Article
- Remote ischaemic preconditioning - translating cardiovascular benefits to humans.The Journal of physiology · 2022Review
- Delayed Cutaneous Microvascular Responses With Non-consecutive 3 Days of Remote Ischemic Preconditioning.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The extent that clustered CVD risk factors interfere with ischemic preconditioning (IPC) to protect against microvascular endothelial dysfunction with ischemia-reperfusion (I/R) injury in humans is unclear. We hypothesized that adults with a clustered burden of ≥3 CVD risk factors would demonstrate a reduced capacity of IPC to protect endothelial function with I/R injury. Twenty-two (age: 45 ± 14 year) adults [12 healthy controls; 10 raised risk (10-year FRS risk score ~3%)] were studied using a 2 × 2 randomized cross-over design. Pulse arterial tonometry was used to assess microvascular endothelium-dependent vasodilation during reactive hyperemia in response to endothelial I/R injury (20 min brachial artery occlusion/45 min reperfusion) that was preceded by remote IPC (3 × 5 min ischemia/reperfusion) or mock IPC. In both groups, microvascular reactive hyperemia was reduced ~20% (both P < 0.01) after endothelial I/R injury without remote IPC. However, in control subjects remote IPC prevented endothelial I/R injury (from baseline reactive hyperemic ratio: 2.1 ± 0.4 AU to post I/R injury: 2.5 ± 0.5 AU; P = 0.09). In contrast, the reactive hyperemia ratio in raised risk subjects was significantly reduced from 2.2 ± 0.6 AU to 1.9 ± 0.5 AU (P = 0.0087) despite attempts to induce protection by remote IPC, with the magnitude of reduction similar to their mock IPC trial. The magnitude of remote IPC-mediated endothelial protection against I/R injury was inversely related to the number of risk factors. CVD risk factors diminish the effect of IPC to protect the microvasculature from I/R injury in humans. Translating IPC to clinical practice for vasculoprotection will continue to be challenging in patients with increased CVD risk.
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.