Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 242

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Remote Ischemic Preconditioning in Human Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: From Promise to Disappointment?

Rahman, Ishtiaq A., Mascaro, Jorge G., Steeds, Rick P., Frenneaux, Michael P., Nightingale, Peter, Gosling, Peter, Townsend, Peter, Townend, John N., Green, David, Bonser, Robert S.·2010·Circulation

Abstract

Background— We assessed whether remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) improves myocardial, renal, and lung protection after on-pump coronary surgery. Methods and Results— This was a single-center, prospective, randomized (1:1), placebo-controlled trial. Patients, investigators, anesthetists, surgeons, and critical care teams were blinded to group allocation. Subjects received RIPC (or placebo) stimuli (×3 upper limb (or dummy arm), 5-minute cycles of 200 mm Hg cuff inflation/deflation) before aortic clamping. Anesthesia, perfusion, cardioplegia, and surgical techniques were standardized. The primary end point was 48-hour area under the curve (AUC) troponin T (cTnT) release. Secondary end points were 6-hour and peak cTnT, ECG changes, cardiac index, inotrope and vasoconstrictor use, renal dysfunction, and lung injury. Hospital survival was 99.4%. Comparing placebo and RIPC, median (interquartile range) AUC 48-hour cTnT (ng/mL −1 /48 h −1 ); 28 (19, 39) versus 30 (22, 38), 6-hour cTnT (ng/mL −1 ); 0.93(0.59, 1.35) versus 1.01(0.72, 1.43), peak cTnT (ng/mL −1 ); 1.02 (0.74, 1.44) versus 1.04 (0.78, 1.51), de novo left bundle-branch block (4% versus 0%) and Q waves (5.3% versus 5.5%), serial cardiac indices, intraaortic balloon pump usage (8.5% versus 7.5%), inotrope (39% versus 50%) and vasoconstrictor usage (66% versus 64%) were not different. Dialysis requirement (1.2% versus 3.8%), peak creatinine (median [interquartile range], 1.2 mg/dL −1 (1.1, 1.4) versus 1.2 (1.0, 1.4)), and AUC urinary albumin-creatinine ratios 69 (40, 112) versus 58 (32, 85) were not different. Intubation times; median (interquartile range), 937 minutes(766, 1402) versus 895(675, 1180), 6-hour; 278 (210, 338) versus 270 (218, 323) and 12-hour pO 2 :FiO 2 ratios 255 (195, 323) versus 263 (210, 308) were similar. Conclusions— In contrast to prior smaller studies, RIPC did not reduce troponin release, improve hemodynamics, or enhance renal or lung protection. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.ukcrn.org.uk. Unique identifier: 4659.

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 · 10.1161/circulationaha.109.926667

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 242

Metadata

Authors
Rahman, I. A., Mascaro, J. G., Steeds, R. P., Frenneaux, M. P., Nightingale, P., Gosling, P., Townsend, P., Townend, J. N., Green, D., & Bonser, R. S.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2010-09-14
Volume
122
Issue
11_suppl_1
Pages
S53-9
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2099501766
Cited by
242
References
0
FWCI
19.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Remote Ischemic Preconditioning in Human Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: From Promise to Disappointment? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.109.926667
The paper
Rahman, I. A., Mascaro, J. G., Steeds, R. P., Frenneaux, M. P., Nightingale, P., Gosling, P., Townsend, P., Townend, J. N., Green, D., & Bonser, R. S. (2010). Remote Ischemic Preconditioning in Human Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: From Promise to Disappointment? Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.109.926667

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.