Combined protocol for remote ischemic conditioning as the method of cardioprotection in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Background. There is currently no commonly accepted strategy for limiting the reperfusion injury that occurs after revascularization in patients with myocardial infarction. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of a promising cardioprotective method.

Material and Methods. Patients with acute anterior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (n = 87) were included in an open-label prospective randomized controlled trial. Control group comprised patients with STEMI who underwent only primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) (n = 44). Patients of intervention group (n = 43) underwent PPCI and remote ischemic perconditioning combined with postconditioning (RIC). The efficacy of RIC was assessed based on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging data.

Results. The medians of left ventricular (LV) infarct size were significantly higher in patients of control group: 44.8 (33.6; 55.5) versus 52.7 (35.5; 73.9) mL (p = 0.039) at day 10 after STEMI and 34.0 (25.8; 39.8) mL versus 46.0 (32.8; 55.0) mL six months after STEMI in control and intervention groups, respectively (p = 0.004). The groups of patients did not differ in the sizes of area at risk relative to the total LV myocardial volume: 40 (35; 45) and 43 (34; 49)% in control and intervention groups, respectively (р = 0.232). The groups significantly differed in the ratios of infarct size to area at risk: 70.3 (65.1; 86.6)% in control group versus 63.5 (52.7; 72.0)% in intervention group (р = 0.014) as well as in the myocardial salvage indexes: 29.7 (13.5; 34.9)% in control group versus 36.5 (28.0; 47.3)% in intervention group (р = 0.014). The study showed the tendency to greater LV myocardial salvage in intervention group versus control group at six-months follow-up (р = 0.073). The groups significantly differed in the medians of microvascular obstruction volume: 1.9 (1.4; 2.9) mL in intervention group versus 2.5 (1.8; 8.1) mL in control group (p = 0.049) as well as in the proportions of microvascular obstruction in the LV myocardium: 0.94 (0.79; 1.37)% in intervention group versus 1.50 (0.89; 3.66)% in control group (р = 0.046).

Conclusion. The RIC method combined with PPCI contributed to the limitation of infarct and microvascular obstruction sizes and was associated with an increase in the myocardial salvage index in STEMI patients.

1. Heusch G. Postconditioning: Old wine in a new bottle? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2004;44(5):1111–1112. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.06.013.

2. Piper H.M., Meuter K., Schifer C. Cellular mechanisms of ischemia– reperfusion injury. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2003;75(2):644–648. DOI: 10.1016/s0003-4975(02)04686-6.

3. Inserte J., Hernando V., Garcia-Dorado D. Contribution of calpains to myocardial ischaemia/reperfusion injury. Cardiovasc. Res. 2012;96(1):23–31. DOI: 10.1093/cvr/cvs232.

4. Yellon D.M., Ackbarkhan A.K., Balgobin V., Bulluck H., Deelchand A., Dhuny M.R. et al. Remote ischemic conditioning reduces myocardial infarct size in STEMI patients treated by thrombolysis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2015;65(25):2764–2765. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.02.082.

5. Kleinbongard P., Baars T., Möhlenkamp S., Kahlert P., Erbel R., Heusch G. Aspirate from human stented native coronary arteries vs. saphenous vein grafts: more endothelin but less particulate debris. Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol. 2015;305(8):1222–1229. DOI: 10.1152/ajpheart.00358.2013.

6. Мрочек А.Г., Басалай М.В., Барсукевич В.Ч., Гурин А.В. Эндогенные феномены кардиопротекции и их механизмы. Кардиология в Беларуси. 2014;(3):88–109.

7. Mrochek A., Basalai M., Barsukevich V., Gurin A. Endogenous phe nomena of cardioprotection and its mechanisms. Cardiology in Belarus. 2014;(3):88–109 (In Russ.).

8. Hausenloy D.J., Kharbanda R.K., Møller U.K., Ramlall M., Aarøe J., Butler R. et al. Effect of remote ischemic conditioning on clinical outcomes at 12 months in acute myocardial infarction patients: the CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI trial. Lancet. 2019;394(10207):1415–1424. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32039-2.

9. Schulz R., Kelm M., Heusch G. Nitric oxide in myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury. Cardiovasc. Res. 2004;61(3):402–413. DOI: 10.1016/j.cardiores.2003.09.019.

10. Reimer K.A., Jennings R.B. The “wavefront phenomenon” of myocardial ischemic cell death. II. Transmural progression of necrosis within the framework of ischemic bed size (myocardium at risk) and collateral flow. Lab. Invest. 1979;40(6):633–644.

11. Garcia-Dorado D., Andres-Villarreal M., Ruiz-Meana M., Inserte J., Barba I. Myocardial edema: A translational view. J. Mol. Cell Cardiol. 2012;52(5):931–939. DOI: 10.1016/j.yjmcc.2012.01.010.

12. Crimi G., Pica S., Raineri C., Bramucci E., De Ferrari G.M., Klersy C. et al. Remote ischemic postconditioning of the lower limb during primary percutaneous coronary intervention safely reduces enzymatic infarct size in anterior myocardial infarction: A randomized controlled trial. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2013;6(10):1055–1063. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.05.011.

13. Bøtker H.E., Kaltoft A.K., Pedersen S.F., Kim W.Y. Measuring myocardial salvage. Cardiovasc. Res. 2012;94(2):266–275. DOI: 10.1093/cvr/cvs081.

14. Lønborg J., Kelbaek H., Vejlstrup N., Jørgensen E., Helqvist S., Saunamäki K. et al. Cardioprotective effects of ischemic postconditioning in patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention, evaluated by magnetic resonance. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2010;3(1):34–41. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.109.905521.

15. Bøtker H.E., Kharbanda R., Schmidt M.R., Bøttcher M., Kaltoft A.K., Terkelsen C.J. et al. Remote ischaemic conditioning before hospital admission, as a complement to angioplasty, and effect on myocardial salvage in patients with acute myocardial infarction: A randomised trial. Lancet. 2010;375(9716):727–734. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)62001-8.

16. White S.K., Frohlich G.M., Sado D.M., Maestrini V., Fontana M., Treibel T.A. et al. Remote ischemic conditioning reduces myocardial infarct size and edema in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2015;8(1B):178–188. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2014.05.015.

17. Munk K., Andersen N.H., Schmidt M.R., Nielsen S.S., Terkelsen C.J., Sloth E. et al. Remote ischemic conditioning in patients with myocardial infarction treated with primary angioplasty: Impact on left ventricular function assessed by comprehensive echocardiography and gated single- photon emission CT. Circ. Cardiovasc. Imaging. 2010;3(6):656–662. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.110.957340.

18. Willenheimer R. Left ventricular remodelling and dysfunction. Can the process be prevented? Int. J. Cardiol. 2000;72(2):143–150. DOI: 10.1016/s0167-5273(99)00182-5.

19. Van Kranenburg M., Magro M., Thiele H., de Waha S., Eitel I., Cochet A. et al. Prognostic value of microvascular obstruction and infarct size, as measured by CMR in STEMI patients. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging. 2014;7(9):930–939. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2014.05.010.

20. De Waha S., Patel M.R., Granger C.B., Ohman E.M., Maehara A., Eitel I. et al. Relationship between microvascular obstruction and adverse events following primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: an individual patient data pooled analysis from seven randomized trials. Eur. Heart J. 2017;38(47):3502–3510. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx414.

21. Symons R., Pontone G., Schwitter J., Francone M., Iglesias J.F., Barison A. et al. Long-Term Incremental Prognostic Value of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance After ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Study of the Collaborative Registry on CMR in STEMI. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging. 2018;11(6):813–825. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2017.05.023.