“In addition, no significant differences between treatment groups were found at the 30-day and 90-day follow-up,” they wrote.
They also saw no adverse events. In their editorial, Drs. Zaugg and Lucchinetti speculated that the technique might be risky in patients with highly unstable coronary plaques because there was a small, albeit nonsignificant, increase in deaths from cardiovascular causes in one of the two studies.
Dr. Meybohm said he didn’t think that speculation was warranted.
“Current data do not strongly support the hypothesis that RIPC may do more harm than good,” he said. “There are preliminary results from about two-three studies, but there are also nearly a hundred studies demonstrating reduced biomarkers of organ ischemia/reperfusion injury, and positive/neutral effects.”
The ERICCA study was funded by the Efficacy and Evaluation Program and the British Heart Foundation