Question special

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?