Induced neuroprotection by remote ischemic perconditioning as a new paradigm in ischemic stroke at the acute phase, a systematic review.
Ischemic stroke
Neuroprotection
Randomized clinical trials
Remote ischemic perconditioning
Systematic review
Journal
BMC neurology
ISSN: 1471-2377
Titre abrégé: BMC Neurol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968555
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Jul 2020
02 Jul 2020
Historique:
received:
16
01
2020
accepted:
22
06
2020
entrez:
4
7
2020
pubmed:
4
7
2020
medline:
21
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Remote ischemic conditioning during cerebral ischemia (remote ischemic perconditioning, RIPerC) refers to the application of several cycles of brief ischemia and reperfusion (I/R) commonly to a limb, and it represents a new paradigm in neuroprotection with multiple mechanisms of action in ischemic stroke (IS) patients during acute phase. Some clinical trials just finished, and a few others are still ongoing; gather the current knowledge and pull it down to influence the present and future studies was the goal of this paper. A systematic review of published research papers and/or registered clinical trials since 2000 was performed. Nineteen studies were identified and only four studies were completed. All of them have demonstrated that RIPerC is safe, feasible and well tolerated in IS patients. However, a high heterogeneity of clinical trial characteristics was observed: five (26.3%) randomized clinical trials (RCTs) included only thrombolytic-treated patients, three (15.8%) RCTs only thrombectomy-treated patients, and five (26.3%) RCTs required radiological confirmation of IS. Temporal inclusion criteria vary from 4 h to 48 h. Most of the clinical trials used 4 cycles of RIPerC in the upper non-affected limb. Interestingly, only three (16.7%) RCTs applied RIPerC during the transportation in the ambulance. Neuroimaging outputs were the main endpoints when endovascular therapy was applied; functional outcome is also the main endpoint in large-medium size studies. This review summarizes the completed and ongoing clinical trials on RIPerC in IS patients, where RIPerC has been used alone or in combination with recanalization therapies. Ongoing clinical trials will provide new information on the best RIPerC intervention strategy and potentially improve the functional outcome of IS patients; definition of new RIPerC strategies would ideally aim at enhancing tissue preservation, promoting neurological recovery, and stratify patients to improve treatment feasibility.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Remote ischemic conditioning during cerebral ischemia (remote ischemic perconditioning, RIPerC) refers to the application of several cycles of brief ischemia and reperfusion (I/R) commonly to a limb, and it represents a new paradigm in neuroprotection with multiple mechanisms of action in ischemic stroke (IS) patients during acute phase. Some clinical trials just finished, and a few others are still ongoing; gather the current knowledge and pull it down to influence the present and future studies was the goal of this paper.
METHODS
METHODS
A systematic review of published research papers and/or registered clinical trials since 2000 was performed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Nineteen studies were identified and only four studies were completed. All of them have demonstrated that RIPerC is safe, feasible and well tolerated in IS patients. However, a high heterogeneity of clinical trial characteristics was observed: five (26.3%) randomized clinical trials (RCTs) included only thrombolytic-treated patients, three (15.8%) RCTs only thrombectomy-treated patients, and five (26.3%) RCTs required radiological confirmation of IS. Temporal inclusion criteria vary from 4 h to 48 h. Most of the clinical trials used 4 cycles of RIPerC in the upper non-affected limb. Interestingly, only three (16.7%) RCTs applied RIPerC during the transportation in the ambulance. Neuroimaging outputs were the main endpoints when endovascular therapy was applied; functional outcome is also the main endpoint in large-medium size studies.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This review summarizes the completed and ongoing clinical trials on RIPerC in IS patients, where RIPerC has been used alone or in combination with recanalization therapies. Ongoing clinical trials will provide new information on the best RIPerC intervention strategy and potentially improve the functional outcome of IS patients; definition of new RIPerC strategies would ideally aim at enhancing tissue preservation, promoting neurological recovery, and stratify patients to improve treatment feasibility.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32615939
doi: 10.1186/s12883-020-01836-8
pii: 10.1186/s12883-020-01836-8
pmc: PMC7330956
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
266Subventions
Organisme : Instituto de Salud Carlos III
ID : PI17-01725
Organisme : Agència de Gestió d'Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca
ID : 2017 SGR 1628
Références
Basic Res Cardiol. 2016 Mar;111(2):10
pubmed: 26768477
J Cell Physiol. 2019 Aug;234(8):12637-12645
pubmed: 30536714
Stroke. 2014 Jan;45(1):87-91
pubmed: 24281224
Curr Cardiol Rev. 2010 Aug;6(3):138-49
pubmed: 21804773
Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2015;33(3):369-79
pubmed: 25868435
Trials. 2019 Mar 15;20(1):167
pubmed: 30876432
Circulation. 1997 Sep 2;96(5):1641-6
pubmed: 9315559
Basic Res Cardiol. 2017 Oct 25;112(6):67
pubmed: 29071437
Nat Rev Cardiol. 2011 Jun 21;8(11):619-29
pubmed: 21691310
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2019 Jul;28(7):1987-1992
pubmed: 31036341
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2018 Apr;27(4):831-838
pubmed: 29395650
Circulation. 1986 Nov;74(5):1124-36
pubmed: 3769170
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2006 Jun;7(6):437-48
pubmed: 16715053
Stroke. 2013 Apr;44(4):1191-7
pubmed: 23339961
Eur Stroke J. 2020 Mar;5(1):94-101
pubmed: 32232175
Neurology. 2012 Oct 30;79(18):1853-61
pubmed: 23035060
Ann Neurol. 2006 Mar;59(3):467-77
pubmed: 16453316
Stroke. 2009 Apr;40(4):1347-52
pubmed: 19228847
Stroke. 2017 Nov;48(11):3064-3072
pubmed: 29042490
Stroke. 2016 Sep;47(9):2373-9
pubmed: 27507856
Lancet. 2014 Nov 29;384(9958):1929-35
pubmed: 25106063
Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2019 Oct 10;5(1):70
pubmed: 31601801
Circulation. 2016 Jan 26;133(4):447-54
pubmed: 26811276
Stroke. 2016 Oct;47(10):2656-65
pubmed: 27586682
Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2018 Jun 06;5(7):850-856
pubmed: 30009202
Stroke. 2017 May;48(5):1412-1415
pubmed: 28265014
Stroke. 2012 Oct;43(10):2794-9
pubmed: 22910893
Lancet. 2008 Aug 16;372(9638):570-84
pubmed: 18707987
Nat Rev Neurol. 2015 Dec;11(12):698-710
pubmed: 26585977
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2019;47(3-4):151-164
pubmed: 31055571
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2017 Nov;37(11):3488-3517
pubmed: 28797196
Stroke. 2013 Jun;44(6):1748-53
pubmed: 23598525
Eur J Neurol. 2010 Apr;17(4):602-6
pubmed: 19968705
Lancet. 2010 Feb 27;375(9716):727-34
pubmed: 20189026
Lancet Neurol. 2016 Jul;15(8):869-881
pubmed: 27180033
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Jan 20;65(2):177-95
pubmed: 25593060
Lancet. 2019 Oct 19;394(10207):1415-1424
pubmed: 31500849
Int J Stroke. 2016 Oct;11(8):938-943
pubmed: 27412192
Lancet. 2018 Oct 6;392(10154):1269-1278
pubmed: 30319114
Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2019 Jan 16;6(2):364-372
pubmed: 30847368
Stroke. 2016 Mar;47(3):768-76
pubmed: 26903582
Lancet. 2016 Apr 23;387(10029):1723-31
pubmed: 26898852
Sci Rep. 2017 Mar 08;7:43529
pubmed: 28272470
Stroke. 2016 May;47(5):1389-98
pubmed: 27073243
Stroke. 2014 Jan;45(1):159-67
pubmed: 24203849
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):1006-12
pubmed: 19631508
JAMA Neurol. 2020 Mar 30;:
pubmed: 32227157
Nature. 2013 Dec 12;504(7479):272-6
pubmed: 24336286
Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2007 Apr;292(4):H1883-90
pubmed: 17172279