PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 14727941

Does ischemic preconditioning afford clinically relevant cardioprotection?

Abstract

This paper reviews significant work which has been done on ischemic preconditioning since its introduction by Murry et al. in 1986. This is a phenomenon where myocardial cells gain protection against long periods of ischemia by initially being exposed to brief episodes of ischemia followed by reperfusion. The molecular basis of ischemic preconditioning where adenosine, bradykinin and opioids are released, and eventually lead to the opening of mitochondrial ATP-sensitive potassium channels, is discussed in detail. There have been over 33 clinical studies to assess the clinical relevance of ischemic preconditioning. Many of these studies have looked at its benefit in patients undergoing percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty; others have looked at its use in open-heart surgery. There is no doubt that many of these studies support the clinical relevance of ischemic preconditioning, however, most of these studies have looked at surrogate markers, such as cardiac enzyme release, and left ventricular ejection fraction, but very few looked at the original endpoint, described by Murry et al., which is cell death. Larger trials, with morbidity and mortality being with the primary endpoints, are needed to confirm the clinical relevance of ischemic preconditioning.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Peter Mikhail, Subodh Verma, Paul W M Fedak, Richard D Weisel, Ren-Ke Li. 2003. Does ischemic preconditioning afford clinically relevant cardioprotection?. https://doi.org/10.2165/00129784-200303010-00001

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

A quality guarantee in acute coronary syndromes: the American College of Cardiology's Guidelines Applied in Practice program taken real-time.

BACKGROUND: Wide variation exists in the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACSs), which includes an apparent underutilization of evidence-based therapies. We have previously demonstrated that application of the American College of Cardiology Guidelines Applied in Practice (GAP) tools can improve quality indicator rates and outcomes of patients hospitalized with ACS. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a real-time system for monitoring key quality-of-care indicators using GAP would improve both process indicators and outcomes beyond those of the initial implementation of GAP. DESIGN: Prospective patient identification, prospective chart coding, retrospective data abstraction. PATIENTS: All patients with ACS admitted (N = 3189) to our institution between January 1, 1999, and December 2004; 2019 studied before real-time implementation from January 1, 1999, to June 30, 2002, and 1170 studied during real-time implementation from July 1, 2002, to December 31, 2004. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The effect of real-time monitoring of key quality indicators on inhospital therapy and outcomes, and 6-month outcomes in patients admitted with ACS. RESULTS: The real-time GAP implementation correlated with more frequent use of inhospital angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (72.7% vs 63.7%, P < .0001), beta blockers (93.0% vs 89.7%, P = .0016), statins (81.2% vs 65.9%, P < .0001), antiplatelet agents (69.2% vs 22.5%, P < .0001), and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (35.5% vs 26.7%, P < .0001). There were fewer episodes of inhospital congestive heart failure (3.85% vs 8.77%, P < .0001) and major bleeding events (3.2% vs 7.9%, P < .0001) after the real-time system was adopted. Real-time GAP also resulted in higher discharge rates of aspirin (92.1% vs 86.5%, P < .0001), beta blockers (86.8% vs 79.1%, P < .0001), statins (81.2% vs 64.7%, P < .0001), and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (67.1% vs 55.5%, P < .0001). Real-time GAP implementation was associated with fewer rehospitalizations for heart disease (19.8% vs 25.2%, P = .0014), myocardial infarction (3.5% vs 5.4%, P = .0243), and combined death/cerebrovascular accident/myocardial infarction (9.5% vs 13.9%, P = .0009) during the first 6 months after discharge. CONCLUSION: The institution of a formal system to review and "guarantee" key quality-of-care indicators real time in the hospital is associated with improved outcomes in patients admitted with ACS. The combination of American College of Cardiology's GAP program and its real-time implementation leads to higher use of evidence-based therapies and correspondingly better outcomes than those associated with the initial GAP implementation.

Angina, Unstable↗