Cardioprotective Role of Remote Ischemic Periconditioning in Primary Percutaneous Coronary InterventionEnhancement by Opioid Action
Ilias Rentoukas, MD*,
Georgios Giannopoulos, MD ,*,
Andreas Kaoukis, MD ,
Charalampos Kossyvakis, MD ,
Konstantinos Raisakis, MD ,
Metaxia Driva, MD ,
Vasiliki Panagopoulou, MD ,
Konstantinos Tsarouchas, MD*,
Sofia Vavetsi, MD*,
Vlasios Pyrgakis, MD ,
Spyridon Deftereos, MD
* Cardiology Department, "A. Fleming" General Hospital, Melissia, Greece
Cardiology Department and Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory, Athens General Hospital "G. Gennimatas," Athens, Greece
* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Georgios Giannopoulos, Cardiology Department and Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory, Athens General Hospital, M. Alexandrou 28, 15122 Marousi, Greece (Email: ggiann{at}med.uoa.gr).
Objectives: We sought to determine the potential of remote ischemic periconditioning (RIPC), and its combination with morphine, to reduce reperfusion injury in primary percutaneous coronary interventions.
Background: Remote ischemic post-conditioning is implemented by applying cycles of ischemia and reperfusion on a remote organ, which result in release of circulating factors inducing the effects of post-conditioning on the myocardium.
Methods: A total of 96 patients (59 men) were enrolled. The patients were randomized to groups as follows: 33 to each treatment group (Group A: RIPC; Group B: RIPC and morphine) and 30 to the control group (Group C). Measures of efficacy were achievement of full ST-segment resolution (primary), and reduction of ST-segment deviation score and peak troponin I during hospitalization.
Results: A higher proportion of patients in Groups A (73%) and B (82%) achieved full ST-segment resolution after percutaneous coronary intervention, compared with control patients (53%) (p = 0.045). Peak troponin I was lowest in Group B, 103.3 ± 13.3 ng/ml, in comparison to peak levels in Group A, 166.0 ± 28.0 ng/ml, and the control group, 255.5 ± 35.5 ng/ml (p = 0.0006). ST-segment deviation resolution was 87.3 ± 2.7% in Group B, compared with 69.9 ± 5.1% in Group A and 53.2 ± 6.4% in the control group (p = 0.00002). In paired comparisons between groups, Group B did better than the control group in terms of both ST-segment reduction (p = 0.0001) and peak troponin I (p = 0.004), whereas Group A differences from the control group did not achieve statistical significance (p = 0.054 and p = 0.062, respectively).
Conclusions: These findings demonstrate a cardioprotective effect of RIPC and morphine during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for the prevention of reperfusion injury. This is in agreement with observations that the beneficial effect of RIPC is inhibited by the opioid receptor blocker naloxone.
Key Words: remote ischemic post-conditioning periconditioning reperfusion injury myocardial infarction percutaneous coronary intervention morphine
|
Abbreviations and Acronyms
| | mPTP = mitochondrial permeability transition pores | | PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention | | RIPC = remote ischemic periconditioning | | STEMI = ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction | | TnI = troponin I |
|
Related Article
-
Post-Conditioning for Cardioprotection During Reperfusion Therapy: Too Good to Be True?
- Abhiram Prasad
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv. 2010 3: 56-57.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
G. Heusch, P. Kleinbongard, A. Skyschally, B. Levkau, R. Schulz, and R. Erbel
The coronary circulation in cardioprotection: more than just one confounder
Cardiovasc Res,
November 9, 2011;
(2011)
cvr271v2.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
R. Jaffe, A. Dick, and B. H. Strauss
Prevention and Treatment of Microvascular Obstruction-Related Myocardial Injury and Coronary No-Reflow Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Approach
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv.,
July 1, 2010;
3(7):
695 - 704.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
A. Prasad
Post-Conditioning for Cardioprotection During Reperfusion Therapy: Too Good to Be True?
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv.,
January 1, 2010;
3(1):
56 - 57.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
|