Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 178

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Randomized controlled trial of remote ischaemic conditioning in ST-elevation myocardial infarction as adjuvant to primary angioplasty (RIC-STEMI)

Open access
Gaspar, António, Lourenço, André P., Pereira, Miguel Álvares, Azevedo, Pedro, Roncon-Albuquerque, Roberto, Marques, Jorge, Leite-Moreira, Adelino F.·2018·Basic Research in Cardiology

Abstract

To test whether remote ischaemic conditioning (RIC) as adjuvant to standard of care (SOC) would prevent progression towards heart failure (HF) after ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Single-centre parallel 1:1 randomized trial (computerized block-randomization, concealed allocation) to assess superiority of RIC (3 cycles of intermittent 5 min lower limb ischaemia) over SOC in consecutive STEMI patients (NCT02313961, clinical trials.gov). From 258 patients randomized to RIC or SOC, 9 and 4% were excluded because of unconfirmed diagnosis and previously unrecognized exclusion criteria, respectively. Combined primary outcome of cardiac mortality and hospitalization for HF was reduced in RIC compared with SOC (n = 231 and 217, respectively; HR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.15–0.78) as well as each outcome in isolation. No difference was found in serum troponin I levels between groups. Median and maximum follow-up time were 2.1 and 3.7 years, respectively. In-hospital HF (RR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.47–0.98), need for diuretics (RR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.48–0.97) and inotropes and/or intra-aortic balloon pump (RR = 0.17, 95% CI 0.04–0.76) were decreased in RIC. On planned 12 months follow-up echocardiography (n = 193 and 173 in RIC and SOC, respectively) ejection fraction (EF) recovery was enhanced in patients presenting with impaired left ventricular (LV) function (10% absolute difference in median EF compared with SOC; P < 0.001). In addition to previously reported improved myocardial salvage index and reduced infarct size RIC was shown beneficial in a combined hard clinical endpoint of cardiac mortality and hospitalization for HF. Improved EF recovery was also documented in patients with impaired LV function.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00395-018-0672-3

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 178

Metadata

Authors
Gaspar, A., Lourenço, A. P., Pereira, M. Á., Azevedo, P., Roncon-Albuquerque, R., Marques, J., & Leite-Moreira, A. F.
Venue
Basic Research in Cardiology
Published
2018-03-07
Volume
113
Issue
3
Pages
14-14
ISSN
  • 0003-9217 (ISSN-L)
  • 0300-8428
  • 1435-1803
OpenAlex
W2790954350
Cited by
178
References
0
FWCI
15.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Randomized controlled trial of remote ischaemic conditioning in ST-elevation myocardial infarction as adjuvant to primary angioplasty (RIC-STEMI). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00395-018-0672-3
The paper
Gaspar, A., Lourenço, A. P., Pereira, M. Á., Azevedo, P., Roncon-Albuquerque, R., Marques, J., & Leite-Moreira, A. F. (2018). Randomized controlled trial of remote ischaemic conditioning in ST-elevation myocardial infarction as adjuvant to primary angioplasty (RIC-STEMI). Basic Research in Cardiology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00395-018-0672-3

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.