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

All the cuff inflations in the upper and lower limb at 140, 160 and 180 mmHg were associated with significant pain and discomfort (measured on a standard 0–10 Numeric Rating Pain Scale). At 160 and 180 mmHg cuff inflation pressures, the pain/discomfort associated with RIPC was significantly higher in the lower limb compared with the upper limb in the first two cycles of RIPC.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

fig06: All the cuff inflations in the upper and lower limb at 140, 160 and 180 mmHg were associated with significant pain and discomfort (measured on a standard 0–10 Numeric Rating Pain Scale). At 160 and 180 mmHg cuff inflation pressures, the pain/discomfort associated with RIPC was significantly higher in the lower limb compared with the upper limb in the first two cycles of RIPC.

Mentions: In both the upper and lower limbs, there was a significant increase in the pain score from baseline with all three cuff inflation pressures used for RIPC (P < 0.01) (Table 2; Fig. 6). The mean pain score was not significantly different in any of the cuff inflations between the upper and the lower limb at 140 mmHg cuff inflation. However, at both 160 and 180 mmHg cuff inflation pressure, the pain associated with the cuff inflation was significantly more in the lower limb compared with the upper limb in the first two cycles of RIPC (P < 0.01). In the third cycle of RIPC, there was no significant difference in the pain associated with cuff inflations even at the higher 160 and 180 mmHg inflation pressures.


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)

All the cuff inflations in the upper and lower limb at 140, 160 and 180 mmHg were associated with significant pain and discomfort (measured on a standard 0–10 Numeric Rating Pain Scale). At 160 and 180 mmHg cuff inflation pressures, the pain/discomfort associated with RIPC was significantly higher in the lower limb compared with the upper limb in the first two cycles of RIPC.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

fig06: All the cuff inflations in the upper and lower limb at 140, 160 and 180 mmHg were associated with significant pain and discomfort (measured on a standard 0–10 Numeric Rating Pain Scale). At 160 and 180 mmHg cuff inflation pressures, the pain/discomfort associated with RIPC was significantly higher in the lower limb compared with the upper limb in the first two cycles of RIPC.
Mentions: In both the upper and lower limbs, there was a significant increase in the pain score from baseline with all three cuff inflation pressures used for RIPC (P < 0.01) (Table 2; Fig. 6). The mean pain score was not significantly different in any of the cuff inflations between the upper and the lower limb at 140 mmHg cuff inflation. However, at both 160 and 180 mmHg cuff inflation pressure, the pain associated with the cuff inflation was significantly more in the lower limb compared with the upper limb in the first two cycles of RIPC (P < 0.01). In the third cycle of RIPC, there was no significant difference in the pain associated with cuff inflations even at the higher 160 and 180 mmHg inflation pressures.

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