Limits...
Characterization of acute ischemia-related physiological responses associated with remote ischemic preconditioning: a randomized controlled, crossover human study.

Sharma V, Cunniffe B, Verma AP, Cardinale M, Yellon D - Physiol Rep (2014)

Bottom Line: There is little evidence to support what limb (upper or lower) or cuff inflation pressures are most effective to deliver this intervention without causing undue discomfort/pain in nonanesthetized humans.Physiological changes in the occluded limb and any pain/discomfort associated with RIPC with each cuff inflation pressure were determined.However, whether benefits of RIPC can also be derived with protocols delivered to the upper limb using lower cuff inflation pressures and with lesser discomfort compared to the lower limb, remains to be investigated.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: The Hatter Cardiovascular Institute, UCL, London, UK Department of Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Schematic diagram describing the study protocol.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4255807&req=5

fig01: Schematic diagram describing the study protocol.

Mentions: Upon entry to the lab, subjects were asked to rest in a supine position for 10 min before measuring resting blood pressure. Blood pressure (BP) was measured on the right arm using an automatic BP monitor (Omron M2 Basic, Omron Healthcare, Muko, Kyoto, Japan). Three readings were obtained and the average values were used for statistical analysis. Additional BP measures were also taken at the end of the study protocol and 10 min post each RIPC protocol (For a schematic diagram of the study design see Fig. 1). Laboratory temperature was maintained at 21°C throughout the study and all measurements were carried out between 0900 and 1700 h.


Characterization of acute ischemia-related physiological responses associated with remote ischemic preconditioning: a randomized controlled, crossover human study.

Sharma V, Cunniffe B, Verma AP, Cardinale M, Yellon D - Physiol Rep (2014)

Schematic diagram describing the study protocol.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4255807&req=5

fig01: Schematic diagram describing the study protocol.
Mentions: Upon entry to the lab, subjects were asked to rest in a supine position for 10 min before measuring resting blood pressure. Blood pressure (BP) was measured on the right arm using an automatic BP monitor (Omron M2 Basic, Omron Healthcare, Muko, Kyoto, Japan). Three readings were obtained and the average values were used for statistical analysis. Additional BP measures were also taken at the end of the study protocol and 10 min post each RIPC protocol (For a schematic diagram of the study design see Fig. 1). Laboratory temperature was maintained at 21°C throughout the study and all measurements were carried out between 0900 and 1700 h.

Bottom Line: There is little evidence to support what limb (upper or lower) or cuff inflation pressures are most effective to deliver this intervention without causing undue discomfort/pain in nonanesthetized humans.Physiological changes in the occluded limb and any pain/discomfort associated with RIPC with each cuff inflation pressure were determined.However, whether benefits of RIPC can also be derived with protocols delivered to the upper limb using lower cuff inflation pressures and with lesser discomfort compared to the lower limb, remains to be investigated.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: The Hatter Cardiovascular Institute, UCL, London, UK Department of Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus