The effect of remote ischaemic conditioning on blood pressure response: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Biggie Baffour-Awuah , Gudrun Dieberg , Melissa J. Pearson , Neil A. Smart
{"title":"The effect of remote ischaemic conditioning on blood pressure response: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Biggie Baffour-Awuah ,&nbsp;Gudrun Dieberg ,&nbsp;Melissa J. Pearson ,&nbsp;Neil A. Smart","doi":"10.1016/j.ijchy.2021.100081","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Previous work has evaluated the effect of remote ischaemic conditioning (RIC) in a number of clinical conditions (e.g. cardiac surgery and acute kidney injury), but only one analysis has examined blood pressure (BP) changes. While individual studies have reported the effects of acute bouts and repeated RIC exposure on resting BP, efficacy is equivocal. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of acute and repeat RIC on BP.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A systematic search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library of Controlled Trials up until October 31, 2020. Additionally, manual searches of reference lists were performed. Studies that compared BP responses after exposing participants to either an acute bout or repeated cycles of RIC with a minimum one-week intervention period were considered.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Eighteen studies were included in this systematic review, ten examined acute effects while eight investigated repeat effects of RIC. Mean differences (MD) for outcome measures from acute RIC studies were: systolic BP 0.18 mmHg (95%CI -0.95, 1.31; <em>p</em> = 0.76), diastolic BP -0.43 mmHg (95%CI -2.36, 1.50; <em>p</em> = 0.66), MAP -1.73 mmHg (95%CI -3.11, −0.34; <em>p</em> = 0.01) and HR -1.15 bpm (95%CI -2.92, 0.62; <em>p</em> = 0.20). Only MAP was significantly reduced. Repeat RIC exposure showed non-significant change in systolic BP -3.23 mmHg (95%CI -6.57, 0.11; <em>p</em> = 0.06) and HR -0.16 bpm (95%CI -7.08, 6.77; <em>p</em> = 0.96) while diastolic BP -2.94 mmHg (95%CI -4.08, −1.79; <em>p</em> &lt; 0.00001) and MAP -3.21 mmHg (95%CI -4.82, −1.61; <em>p</em> &lt; 0.0001) were significantly reduced.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Our data suggests repeated, but not acute, RIC produced clinically meaningful reductions in diastolic BP and MAP.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36839,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cardiology: Hypertension","volume":"8 ","pages":"Article 100081"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ijchy.2021.100081","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Cardiology: Hypertension","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590086221000069","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background

Previous work has evaluated the effect of remote ischaemic conditioning (RIC) in a number of clinical conditions (e.g. cardiac surgery and acute kidney injury), but only one analysis has examined blood pressure (BP) changes. While individual studies have reported the effects of acute bouts and repeated RIC exposure on resting BP, efficacy is equivocal. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of acute and repeat RIC on BP.

Methods

A systematic search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library of Controlled Trials up until October 31, 2020. Additionally, manual searches of reference lists were performed. Studies that compared BP responses after exposing participants to either an acute bout or repeated cycles of RIC with a minimum one-week intervention period were considered.

Results

Eighteen studies were included in this systematic review, ten examined acute effects while eight investigated repeat effects of RIC. Mean differences (MD) for outcome measures from acute RIC studies were: systolic BP 0.18 mmHg (95%CI -0.95, 1.31; p = 0.76), diastolic BP -0.43 mmHg (95%CI -2.36, 1.50; p = 0.66), MAP -1.73 mmHg (95%CI -3.11, −0.34; p = 0.01) and HR -1.15 bpm (95%CI -2.92, 0.62; p = 0.20). Only MAP was significantly reduced. Repeat RIC exposure showed non-significant change in systolic BP -3.23 mmHg (95%CI -6.57, 0.11; p = 0.06) and HR -0.16 bpm (95%CI -7.08, 6.77; p = 0.96) while diastolic BP -2.94 mmHg (95%CI -4.08, −1.79; p < 0.00001) and MAP -3.21 mmHg (95%CI -4.82, −1.61; p < 0.0001) were significantly reduced.

Conclusions

Our data suggests repeated, but not acute, RIC produced clinically meaningful reductions in diastolic BP and MAP.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
远程缺血调节对血压反应的影响:一项系统综述和荟萃分析
先前的研究已经评估了远程缺血调节(RIC)在许多临床情况下(如心脏手术和急性肾损伤)的影响,但只有一项分析检查了血压(BP)的变化。虽然个别研究报道了急性发作和反复暴露于RIC对静息血压的影响,但疗效尚不明确。我们进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析,以评估急性和重复RIC对BP的影响。方法系统检索截至2020年10月31日的PubMed、Web of Science、EMBASE和Cochrane对照试验库。此外,还执行了对参考列表的手动搜索。研究考虑了将参与者暴露于急性发作或重复周期RIC后的BP反应与至少一周的干预期进行比较。结果本系统综述纳入了18项研究,其中10项研究为急性效应,8项研究为重复效应。急性RIC研究结果指标的平均差异(MD)为:收缩压0.18 mmHg (95%CI -0.95, 1.31;p = 0.76),舒张压-0.43 mmHg (95%CI -2.36, 1.50;p = 0.66), MAP -1.73 mmHg (95%CI -3.11, - 0.34;p = 0.01), HR -1.15 bpm (95%CI -2.92, 0.62;p = 0.20)。只有MAP显著降低。重复RIC暴露显示收缩压无显著变化-3.23 mmHg (95%CI -6.57, 0.11;p = 0.06), HR -0.16 bpm (95%CI -7.08, 6.77;p = 0.96),舒张压-2.94 mmHg (95%CI -4.08, - 1.79;p & lt;0.00001)和MAP -3.21 mmHg (95%CI -4.82, - 1.61;p & lt;0.0001)显著降低。sour数据表明,反复但非急性的RIC可导致舒张压和MAP有临床意义的降低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Cardiology: Hypertension
International Journal of Cardiology: Hypertension Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
COVID-19 morbidity and mortality associated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers use among 14,129 patients with hypertension from a US integrated healthcare system Reduced global longitudinal strain at rest and inadequate blood pressure response during exercise treadmill testing in male heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia patients Association of family history with incidence and gestational hypertension outcomes of preeclampsia Critical questions in cardiovascular risk: What nutrition labels should be used on food? Why is salt-sensitivity of blood pressure, a known cardiovascular risk factor, not treated?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1