Remote Ischemic Conditioning in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke Ineligible for Recanalization Therapies: A Phase II Trial.

IF 3.1 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) Pub Date : 2026-07-10 eCollection Date: 2026-09-01 DOI:10.1161/SVIN.125.002277
Susanna Diamanti, Mauro Tettamanti, Raffaele Ornello, Francesco Andrea Pedrazzini, Matteo Farè, Enrico Colangeli, Cindy Tiseo, Gabriele Mainini, Angela Giglio, Caterina Sozzi, Federica Ferrari, Mario Beccia, Elisa Bianchi, Anna Bersano, Chiara Bazzini, Massimo Cartabia, Chiara Paola Zoia, Jacopo Mariani, Giuseppe Pignataro, Anna Cavallini, Giuliano Sette, Simona Sacco, Carlo Ferrarese, Simone Beretta
{"title":"Remote Ischemic Conditioning in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke Ineligible for Recanalization Therapies: A Phase II Trial.","authors":"Susanna Diamanti, Mauro Tettamanti, Raffaele Ornello, Francesco Andrea Pedrazzini, Matteo Farè, Enrico Colangeli, Cindy Tiseo, Gabriele Mainini, Angela Giglio, Caterina Sozzi, Federica Ferrari, Mario Beccia, Elisa Bianchi, Anna Bersano, Chiara Bazzini, Massimo Cartabia, Chiara Paola Zoia, Jacopo Mariani, Giuseppe Pignataro, Anna Cavallini, Giuliano Sette, Simona Sacco, Carlo Ferrarese, Simone Beretta","doi":"10.1161/SVIN.125.002277","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) has shown neuroprotective potential in preclinical stroke models. In patients with acute ischemic stroke, trials report heterogeneous results, supporting ongoing debate about clinical efficacy, especially in those ineligible for recanalization. This trial assessed RIC benefit in this population and evaluated HSP27 (heat shock protein 27) and HIF-1α (hypoxia-inducible factor 1-alpha) as biomarkers of RIC-related biological activity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a multicenter, phase II, proof-of-concept, block-randomized, controlled, parallel-arm, PROBE (Prospective Randomized Open Blinded End Point)-designed clinical trial. Patients with acute ischemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score of 5-25) who were ineligible for recanalization therapies were randomized 1:1 within 9 hours of symptom onset to RIC (4 5-minute cycles of upper-arm ischemia/reperfusion) plus standard medical therapy or standard therapy alone. The primary outcome was the percentage change in NIHSS score at 72 hours. Secondary outcomes included NIHSS score changes at 24 and 48 hours, 90-day modified Rankin Scale, tolerability, and changes in plasma HSP27 and HIF-1α concentrations from 24 to 72 hours.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty patients (40 per group) were enrolled across 4 centers from August 2021 to March 2024. Although slightly in favor of RIC treatment, median NIHSS score percentage change at 72 hours did not differ between the RIC and control groups (23.6% versus 29.9%; adjusted coefficient, -3.8 [95% CI, -19.7 to 12.1]; <i>P</i>=0.635). No significant differences in NIHSS score percentage change were observed at 24 or 48 hours. Ninety-day poor functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale score, 3-6) was similar between groups (57.5% versus 65.0%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.21-2.97]; <i>P</i>=0.732). RIC was completed by 97.5% of patients with minimal treatment-related discomfort. No major adverse events occurred. No between-group differences were detected in HIF-1α or HSP27 changes from 24 to 72 hours.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients with acute ischemic stroke ineligible for recanalization therapies, early RIC was safe, feasible, and well tolerated but did not improve neurological outcomes or modify HIF-1α and HSP27 levels.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04400981.</p>","PeriodicalId":74875,"journal":{"name":"Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.)","volume":"6 5","pages":"e002277"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13549644/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/SVIN.125.002277","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) has shown neuroprotective potential in preclinical stroke models. In patients with acute ischemic stroke, trials report heterogeneous results, supporting ongoing debate about clinical efficacy, especially in those ineligible for recanalization. This trial assessed RIC benefit in this population and evaluated HSP27 (heat shock protein 27) and HIF-1α (hypoxia-inducible factor 1-alpha) as biomarkers of RIC-related biological activity.

Methods: This was a multicenter, phase II, proof-of-concept, block-randomized, controlled, parallel-arm, PROBE (Prospective Randomized Open Blinded End Point)-designed clinical trial. Patients with acute ischemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score of 5-25) who were ineligible for recanalization therapies were randomized 1:1 within 9 hours of symptom onset to RIC (4 5-minute cycles of upper-arm ischemia/reperfusion) plus standard medical therapy or standard therapy alone. The primary outcome was the percentage change in NIHSS score at 72 hours. Secondary outcomes included NIHSS score changes at 24 and 48 hours, 90-day modified Rankin Scale, tolerability, and changes in plasma HSP27 and HIF-1α concentrations from 24 to 72 hours.

Results: Eighty patients (40 per group) were enrolled across 4 centers from August 2021 to March 2024. Although slightly in favor of RIC treatment, median NIHSS score percentage change at 72 hours did not differ between the RIC and control groups (23.6% versus 29.9%; adjusted coefficient, -3.8 [95% CI, -19.7 to 12.1]; P=0.635). No significant differences in NIHSS score percentage change were observed at 24 or 48 hours. Ninety-day poor functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale score, 3-6) was similar between groups (57.5% versus 65.0%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.21-2.97]; P=0.732). RIC was completed by 97.5% of patients with minimal treatment-related discomfort. No major adverse events occurred. No between-group differences were detected in HIF-1α or HSP27 changes from 24 to 72 hours.

Conclusions: In patients with acute ischemic stroke ineligible for recanalization therapies, early RIC was safe, feasible, and well tolerated but did not improve neurological outcomes or modify HIF-1α and HSP27 levels.

Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04400981.

不适合再通治疗的急性缺血性卒中患者的远端缺血适应:一项II期试验。
背景:远端缺血调节(RIC)在临床前脑卒中模型中显示出神经保护潜力。在急性缺血性卒中患者中,试验报告了不一致的结果,支持正在进行的关于临床疗效的争论,特别是在那些不符合再通条件的患者中。该试验评估了RIC在该人群中的益处,并评估了HSP27(热休克蛋白27)和HIF-1α(缺氧诱导因子1- α)作为RIC相关生物活性的生物标志物。方法:这是一项多中心、II期、概念验证、区域随机、对照、平行臂、PROBE(前瞻性随机开放盲法终点)设计的临床试验。不适合再通治疗的急性缺血性卒中患者(美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表[NIHSS]评分为5-25)在症状出现后9小时内按1:1随机分为RIC(上臂缺血/再灌注4个5分钟周期)加标准药物治疗或单独标准治疗。主要终点是72小时时NIHSS评分的百分比变化。次要结局包括24小时和48小时NIHSS评分变化、90天改良Rankin量表、耐受性以及24至72小时血浆HSP27和HIF-1α浓度变化。结果:从2021年8月到2024年3月,在4个中心招募了80名患者(每组40名)。虽然稍微支持RIC治疗,但在RIC组和对照组之间,72小时NIHSS评分中位数百分比变化没有差异(23.6%对29.9%;校正系数为-3.8 [95% CI, -19.7至12.1];P=0.635)。24小时和48小时NIHSS评分百分比变化无显著差异。90天功能不良结局(改良Rankin量表评分,3-6)组间相似(57.5% vs 65.0%;校正优势比为0.79 [95% CI, 0.21-2.97]; P=0.732)。97.5%的患者完成了RIC,治疗相关的不适最小。未发生重大不良事件。24 ~ 72小时HIF-1α和HSP27变化无组间差异。结论:对于不适合再通治疗的急性缺血性卒中患者,早期RIC是安全、可行且耐受性良好的,但并未改善神经预后或改变HIF-1α和HSP27水平。注册:网址:https://www.clinicaltrials.gov;唯一标识符:NCT04400981。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书