ArticleStroke (Hoboken, N.J.)2026
Remote Ischemic Conditioning on Infarct Growth in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke: Subgroup Analysis From the RESIST Trial.
Article in Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRemote ischemic conditioning (RIC) is a promising cerebroprotective strategy, but its effects on early infarct dynamics are unclear. We assessed whether RIC reduces acute-to-24-hour infarct growth on magnetic resonance imaging in this predefined RESIST substudy (Remote Ischemic Conditioning in Patients With Acute Stroke).
methodsWe included consecutive patients with acute ischemic stroke from a single RESIST center where acute and 24-hour magnetic resonance imaging were acquired. Infarcts were automatically segmented on diffusion-weighted images using a combined deep learning algorithm. For the primary analysis, brain infarct volume (mL) was analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model with group (RIC versus sham), scan time (baseline/24 hours), their interaction (group×scan), age, and prehospital stroke severity as predictors. Secondary analyses comprised stratified subgroup analyses by age, sex, smoking, diabetes, hypertension, arterial fibrillation, previous acute ischemic stroke, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores, reperfusion treatment, and change from baseline.
resultsOf 384 screened patients with acute ischemic stroke, 346 were analyzed (RIC=162; sham=184) with similar baseline characteristics (age, 71 [interquartile range, 62-80] versus 73 [interquartile range, 64-78] years; female 34% versus 36%). Median infarct growth was similar (RIC, 0.45 [interquartile range, -0.54 to 2.86] versus sham, 0.40 mL [interquartile range, -0.50 to 4.74]). The mean infarct growth from acute to 24-hour magnetic resonance imaging was comparable between the RIC group (6.19 [range, -44.94 to 277.01] mL) and the sham group (5.80 [range, -66.18 to 182.13] mL). No significant differences in infarct growth were found between groups, and subgroup analyses likewise showed no significant differences across National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score or reperfusion categories.
conclusionsIn this RESIST substudy, combined prehospital and early in-hospital RIC was not associated with differences in early diffusion-weighted imaging-based infarct growth compared with sham.
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.