SynthesisCardiovascular research2023
Cardioprotective efficacy of limb remote ischaemic preconditioning in rats: discrepancy between a meta-analysis and a three-centre in vivo study.
Synthesis in Cardiovascular research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- IMproving Preclinical Assessment of Cardioprotective Therapies (IMPACT): a small animal acute myocardial infarction randomized-controlled multicenter study on the effect of ischemic preconditioning.Basic research in cardiology · 2025Article
- Comparison of mouse models of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.ESC heart failure · 2025Article
- Effects of sex and obesity on immune checkpoint inhibition-related cardiac systolic dysfunction in aged mice.Basic research in cardiology · 2025Article
- Deep learning segmentation model for quantification of infarct size in pigs with myocardial ischemia/reperfusion.Basic research in cardiology · 2024Article
- The IMproving Preclinical Assessment of Cardioprotective Therapies (IMPACT): multicenter pig study on the effect of ischemic preconditioning.Basic research in cardiology · 2024Article
- Heart failure pharmacotherapy and cancer: pathways and pre-clinical/clinical evidence.European heart journal · 2024Review
- A Novel Postconditioning Approach Attenuates Myocardial Ischaemia-Reperfusion Injury in Rats.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Droplet Digital PCR Is a Novel Screening Method Identifying Potential Cardiac G-Protein-Coupled Receptors as Candidate Pharmacological Targets in a Rat Model of Pressure-Overload-Induced Cardiac Dysfunction.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- No robust reduction of infarct size and no-reflow by metoprolol pretreatment in adult Göttingen minipigs.Basic research in cardiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsRemote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) is a robust cardioprotective intervention in preclinical studies. To establish a working and efficacious RIPC protocol in our laboratories, we performed randomized, blinded in vivo studies in three study centres in rats, with various RIPC protocols. To verify that our experimental settings are in good alignment with in vivo rat studies showing cardioprotection by limb RIPC, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. In addition, we investigated the importance of different study parameters. METHODS AND
resultsMale Wistar rats were subjected to 20-45 min cardiac ischaemia followed by 120 min reperfusion with or without preceding RIPC by 3 or 4 × 5-5 min occlusion/reperfusion of one or two femoral vessels by clamping, tourniquet, or pressure cuff. RIPC did not reduce infarct size (IS), microvascular obstruction, or arrhythmias at any study centres. Systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on in vivo rat models of myocardial ischaemia/reperfusion injury with limb RIPC showed that RIPC reduces IS by 21.28% on average. In addition, the systematic review showed methodological heterogeneity and insufficient reporting of study parameters in a high proportion of studies.
conclusionWe report for the first time the lack of cardioprotection by RIPC in rats, assessed in individually randomized, blinded in vivo studies, involving three study centres, using different RIPC protocols. These results are in discrepancy with the meta-analysis of similar in vivo rat studies; however, no specific methodological reason could be identified by the systematic review, probably due to the overall insufficient reporting of several study parameters that did not improve over the past two decades. These results urge for publication of more well-designed and well-reported studies, irrespective of the outcome, which are required for preclinical reproducibility, and the development of clinically translatable cardioprotective interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.