Data from both trials published in NEJM indicate that RIP doesn't not appear to have a clinical benefit. However, should the practice be stopped altogether? As Dr. Zhaugg, points out in the accompanying editorial, Remote Ischemic Preconditioning in Cardiac Surgery — Ineffective and Risky?:
"the number of deaths from cardiovascular causes was higher in the group of patients undergoing remote ischemic preconditioning than in the group undergoing sham treatment (although the difference was not significant [P=0.08]), yet there were fewer cases of nonlethal myocardial infarction in the remote-ischemic-preconditioning group. These puzzling data suggest a shift in the complication profile from nonlethal myocardial infarction to lethal cardiovascular complications in the remote-ischemic-preconditioning group and confirm similar observations in two other recent studies."
With the data presented here, is anyone going to change their current practice?
Easy one-click social registrationIs this safe?
We only receive the minimum information necessary to verify your account. We never get access to your friends/contacts or your profile, and we never post on your behalf. Your social account is used for logging in only.ORRegister via email
Send me updates on this Contest
In order to ensure a fair voting process and to make sure that no one votes more than once, we ask that you register either with a social networking account (easiest, only requires one click) or by registering with your email address (this will require you to click on a verification email that we will send you).
You only need to register once.