Remote Ischemic Conditioning in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis
Authors Sandven I, Eritsland J, Abdelnoor M
Received 18 February 2020
Accepted for publication 14 May 2020
Published 10 June 2020 Volume 2020:12 Pages 595—605
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Professor Irene Petersen
Irene Sandven,1 Jan Eritsland,2 Michael Abdelnoor3,4
1Oslo Centre for Biostatistics and Epidemiology (OCBE), Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; 2Department of Cardiology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; 3Centre of Clinical Heart Research, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; 4Epidemiology and Biological Statistics, Independent Health Research Unit, Oslo, Norway
Correspondence: Irene Sandven Email firstname.lastname@example.org
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) as compared to no conditioning on clinical endpoints in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
Design: Systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs).
Material and Methods: Literature was searched up to September 13, 2019, and we identified a total of 13 RCTs. The efficacy of RIC on incidence of clinical events during follow-up was quantified by the rate ratio (RR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI), and we used fixed and random effects models to synthetize the results. Small-study effect was evaluated, and controlled for by the trim-and-fill method. Heterogeneity between studies was examined by subgroup and meta-regression analyses. The risk of false-positive results in meta-analysis was evaluated by trial sequential analysis (TSA).
Results: Pooled analysis of 13 trials (7183 patients) showed that RIC compared to no conditioning revealed a non-significant risk reduction on endpoint mortality (RR=0.81, 95% CI: 0.56– 1.17) during a median follow-up time of 1 year (range: 0.08– 3.8) with low heterogeneity (I2=16%). Controlling for small-study effect showed no efficacy of RIC (adjusted RR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.66– 1.59). Pooled effect of RIC on the incidence of myocardial infarction (MI) from 11 trials (6996 patients) was non-significant too (RR=0.85, 95% CI: 0.62– 1.18), with no observed heterogeneity (I2=0%) or small-study effect. A similar lack of efficacy was found in endpoint congestive heart failure (CHF) from 6 trials including 6098 patients (RR=0.71, 95% CI: 0.44– 1.15), with moderate heterogeneity (I2=30%). TSAs showed that the pooled estimates from the cumulative meta-analyses were true negative with adequate power.
Conclusion: Evidence from this updated systematic review demonstrates no beneficial effect of RIC on the incidence of clinical endpoint mortality, MI and CHF during a median follow-up of 1 year in ACS patients undergoing PCI.
Keywords: remote ischemic conditioning, mortality, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]