Bromage Daniel I, Pickard Jack M J, Rossello Xavier, Ziff Oliver J, Burke Niall, Yellon Derek M, Davidson Sean M
Cardiovasc Res. 2017 Mar 1;113(3):288-297. doi: 10.1093/cvr/cvw219.
The potential of remote ischaemic conditioning (RIC) to ameliorate myocardial ischaemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) remains controversial. We aimed to analyse the pre-clinical evidence base to ascertain the overall effect and variability of RIC in animal in vivo models of myocardial IRI. Furthermore, we aimed to investigate the impact of different study protocols on the protective utility of RIC in animal models and identify gaps in our understanding of this promising therapeutic strategy.
Our primary outcome measure was the difference in mean infarct size between RIC and control groups in in vivo models of myocardial IRI. A systematic review returned 31 reports, from which we made 22 controlled comparisons of remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPreC) and 21 of remote ischaemic perconditioning and postconditioning (RIPerC/RIPostC) in a pooled random-effects meta-analysis. In total, our analysis includes data from 280 control animals and 373 animals subject to RIC. Overall, RIPreC reduced infarct size as a percentage of area at risk by 22.8% (95% CI 18.8-26.9%), when compared with untreated controls (P < 0.001). Similarly, RIPerC/RIPostC reduced infarct size by 22.2% (95% CI 17.1-25.3%; P < 0.001). Interestingly, we observed significant heterogeneity in effect size (T2 = 92.9% and I2 = 99.4%; P < 0.001) that could not be explained by any of the experimental variables analysed by meta-regression. However, few reports have systematically characterized RIC protocols, and few of the included in vivo studies satisfactorily met study quality requirements, particularly with respect to blinding and randomization.
RIC significantly reduces infarct size in in vivo models of myocardial IRI. Heterogeneity between studies could not be explained by the experimental variables tested, but studies are limited in number and lack consistency in quality and study design. There is therefore a clear need for more well-performed in vivo studies with particular emphasis on detailed characterization of RIC protocols and investigating the potential impact of gender. Finally, more studies investigating the potential benefit of RIC in larger species are required before translation to humans.
远程缺血预处理(RIC)改善心肌缺血再灌注损伤(IRI)的潜力仍存在争议。我们旨在分析临床前证据基础,以确定RIC在心肌IRI动物体内模型中的总体效果和变异性。此外,我们旨在研究不同研究方案对RIC在动物模型中保护作用的影响,并找出我们对这一有前景的治疗策略理解上的差距。
我们的主要结局指标是心肌IRI体内模型中RIC组和对照组之间平均梗死面积的差异。一项系统评价检索到31篇报告,从中我们在汇总随机效应荟萃分析中对远程缺血预处理(RIPreC)进行了22次对照比较,对远程缺血预适应和后适应(RIPerC/RIPostC)进行了21次对照比较。我们的分析总共纳入了来自280只对照动物和373只接受RIC处理动物的数据。总体而言,与未处理的对照组相比,RIPreC使梗死面积占危险区域面积的百分比降低了22.8%(95%置信区间18.8 - 26.9%,P < 0.001)。同样,RIPerC/RIPostC使梗死面积降低了22.2%(95%置信区间17.1 - 25.3%;P < 0.001)。有趣的是,我们观察到效应大小存在显著异质性(T2 = 92.9%,I2 = 99.4%;P < 0.001),这无法用荟萃回归分析的任何实验变量来解释。然而,很少有报告系统地描述RIC方案,纳入的体内研究中很少有令人满意地符合研究质量要求的,特别是在盲法和随机化方面。
RIC在心肌IRI体内模型中显著减小梗死面积。研究之间的异质性无法用所测试的实验变量来解释,但研究数量有限,质量和研究设计缺乏一致性。因此,显然需要更多执行良好的体内研究,特别强调对RIC方案进行详细描述并研究性别潜在影响。最后,在转化到人体之前,需要更多研究探讨RIC在更大物种中的潜在益处。