Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35593677›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society2023

The effect of repeated remote ischemic postconditioning after an ischemic stroke (REPOST): A randomized controlled trial.

Thijs Rj Landman, Yvonne Schoon, Michiel C Warlé, Frederick Ja Meijer, Frank-Erik De Leeuw, Dick Hj Thijssen

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Remote ischaemic conditioning for preventing and treating ischaemic stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Thijs Rj LandmanDepartment of Physiology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8118-1429
Yvonne SchoonDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Michiel C WarléDepartment of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Frederick Ja MeijerDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Frank-Erik De LeeuwDonders Center for Medical Neuroscience, Department of Neurology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Dick Hj ThijssenDepartment of Physiology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7707-5567
Radboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsA potential strategy to treat ischemic stroke may be the application of repeated remote ischemic postconditioning (rIPostC). This consists of several cycles of brief periods of limb ischemia followed by reperfusion, which can be applied by inflating a simple blood pressure cuff and subsequently could result in neuroprotection after stroke.

methodsAdult patients admitted with an ischemic stroke in the past 24 h were randomized 1:1 to repeated rIPostC or sham-conditioning. Repeated rIPostC was performed by inflating a blood pressure cuff around the upper arm (4 × 5 min at 200 mm Hg), which was repeated twice daily during hospitalization with a maximum of 4 days. Primary outcome was infarct size after 4 days or at discharge. Secondary outcomes included the modified Rankin Scale (mRS)-score after 12 weeks and the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) at discharge.

resultsThe trial was preliminarily stopped after we included 88 of the scheduled 180 patients (average age: 70 years, 68% male) into rIPostC (n = 40) and sham-conditioning (n = 48). Median infarct volume was 2.19 mL in rIPostC group and 5.90 mL in sham-conditioning, which was not significantly different between the two groups (median difference: 3.71; 95% CI: -0.56 to 6.09; p = 0.31). We found no significant shift in the mRS score distribution between groups. The adjusted common odds ratio was 2.09 (95% CI: 0.88-5.00). We found no significant difference in the NIHSS score between groups (median difference: 1.00; 95% CI: -0.99 to 1.40; p = 0.51).

conclusionThis study found no significant improvement in infarct size or clinical outcome in patients with an acute ischemic stroke who were treated with repeated remote ischemic postconditioning. However, due to a lower-than-expected inclusion rate, no definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of rIPostC can be drawn.

Indexed as

Ischemic PostconditioningIschemic StrokeStrokeAdultAgedFemaleHumansInfarctionMaleAcute stroke therapyischemic strokeMRIneuroprotectiontherapytreatment

Identifiers

PMID35593677
PMCPMC9941800
OpenAlexW4281259537

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.