Cardiology Department, Vall D'Hebron Institut de Recerca (VHIR), Vall D'Hebron Hospital Universitari, Vall D'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Passeig Vall d'Hebron 119-129, 08035, Barcelona, Spain.
CIBERCV, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.
Basic Res Cardiol. 2021 Jan 25;116(1):4. doi: 10.1007/s00395-021-00842-2.
Remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) and the GLP-1 analog exenatide activate different cardioprotective pathways and may have additive effects on infarct size (IS). Here, we aimed to assess the efficacy of RIC as compared with sham procedure, and of exenatide, as compared with placebo, and the interaction between both, to reduce IS in humans. We designed a two-by-two factorial, randomized controlled, blinded, multicenter, clinical trial. Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction receiving primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) within 6 h of symptoms were randomized to RIC or sham procedure and exenatide or matching placebo. The primary outcome was IS measured by late gadolinium enhancement in cardiac magnetic resonance performed 3-7 days after PPCI. The secondary outcomes were myocardial salvage index, transmurality index, left ventricular ejection fraction and relative microvascular obstruction volume. A total of 378 patients were randomly allocated, and after applying exclusion criteria, 222 patients were available for analysis. There were no significant interactions between the two randomization factors on the primary or secondary outcomes. IS was similar between groups for the RIC (24 ± 11.8% in the RIC group vs 23.7 ± 10.9% in the sham group, P = 0.827) and the exenatide hypotheses (25.1 ± 11.5% in the exenatide group vs 22.5 ± 10.9% in the placebo group, P = 0.092). There were no effects with either RIC or exenatide on the secondary outcomes. Unexpected adverse events or side effects of RIC and exenatide were not observed. In conclusion, neither RIC nor exenatide, or its combination, were able to reduce IS in STEMI patients when administered as an adjunct to PPCI.
远程缺血预处理(RIC)和 GLP-1 类似物艾塞那肽激活不同的心脏保护途径,可能对梗死面积(IS)有相加作用。在此,我们旨在评估 RIC 与假手术相比,以及艾塞那肽与安慰剂相比,以及两者之间的相互作用,以减少人类的 IS。我们设计了一个两因素、随机对照、盲法、多中心临床试验。发病 6 小时内接受直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PPCI)的 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死患者随机分为 RIC 或假手术组,以及艾塞那肽或匹配安慰剂组。主要结局是通过 PPCI 后 3-7 天进行的心脏磁共振检查测量的晚期钆增强的 IS。次要结局是心肌挽救指数、透壁指数、左心室射血分数和相对微血管闭塞体积。共随机分配了 378 名患者,在应用排除标准后,222 名患者可进行分析。两种随机因素对主要或次要结局均无显著相互作用。RIC 组的 IS 与对照组相似(RIC 组 24 ± 11.8%,假手术组 23.7 ± 10.9%,P = 0.827),艾塞那肽组的 IS 也与对照组相似(艾塞那肽组 25.1 ± 11.5%,安慰剂组 22.5 ± 10.9%,P = 0.092)。RIC 或艾塞那肽对次要结局均无影响。RIC 和艾塞那肽均未观察到意外的不良反应或副作用。总之,在直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的辅助下,RIC 和 GLP-1 类似物艾塞那肽均不能减少 STEMI 患者的 IS。