Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 Feb 23:8:100081.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijchy.2021.100081. eCollection 2021 Mar.

The effect of remote ischaemic conditioning on blood pressure response: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Biggie Baffour-Awuah  1 , Gudrun Dieberg  2 , Melissa J Pearson  1 , Neil A Smart  1
Affiliations
Review

The effect of remote ischaemic conditioning on blood pressure response: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Biggie Baffour-Awuah et al. Int J Cardiol Hypertens. .

Abstract

Background: Previous work has evaluated the effect of remote ischaemic conditioning (RIC) in a number of clinical conditions (e.g. cardiac surgery and acute kidney injury), but only one analysis has examined blood pressure (BP) changes. While individual studies have reported the effects of acute bouts and repeated RIC exposure on resting BP, efficacy is equivocal. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of acute and repeat RIC on BP.

Methods: A systematic search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library of Controlled Trials up until October 31, 2020. Additionally, manual searches of reference lists were performed. Studies that compared BP responses after exposing participants to either an acute bout or repeated cycles of RIC with a minimum one-week intervention period were considered.

Results: Eighteen studies were included in this systematic review, ten examined acute effects while eight investigated repeat effects of RIC. Mean differences (MD) for outcome measures from acute RIC studies were: systolic BP 0.18 mmHg (95%CI -0.95, 1.31; p = 0.76), diastolic BP -0.43 mmHg (95%CI -2.36, 1.50; p = 0.66), MAP -1.73 mmHg (95%CI -3.11, -0.34; p = 0.01) and HR -1.15 bpm (95%CI -2.92, 0.62; p = 0.20). Only MAP was significantly reduced. Repeat RIC exposure showed non-significant change in systolic BP -3.23 mmHg (95%CI -6.57, 0.11; p = 0.06) and HR -0.16 bpm (95%CI -7.08, 6.77; p = 0.96) while diastolic BP -2.94 mmHg (95%CI -4.08, -1.79; p < 0.00001) and MAP -3.21 mmHg (95%CI -4.82, -1.61; p < 0.0001) were significantly reduced.

Conclusions: Our data suggests repeated, but not acute, RIC produced clinically meaningful reductions in diastolic BP and MAP.

Keywords: Acute remote ischaemic conditioning; BP, blood pressure; Blood pressure; CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; CI, confidence interval; HR, heart rate; MD, mean difference; RIC; RIC, Remote ischaemic conditioning; Repeat remote ischaemic conditioning; SD, standard deviation; T2DM, type 2 diabetes mellitus; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None of the authors declare any conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow diagram.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Changes in systolic and diastolic BP, MAP and HR after acute RIC exposure. Forest plots showing the effects of acute RIC exposure on systolic BP (A), diastolic BP (B), MAP (C) and HR (D). A p-value < 0.05 represents a significant pooled mean difference of overall effect. Horizontal lines across each present 95% CI for each study. The diamond represents the 95% CI for pooled estimates of effect of mean difference. CHD: chronic heart disease group; HLT: healthy group; IV: inverse variance; RIC: remote ischaemic conditioning; SD: standard deviation; Total: number of participants.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Changes in systolic and diastolic BP, MAP and HR after repeat RIC exposure. Forest plots showing the effects of repeat RIC exposure on systolic blood pressure (A) and diastolic BP (B), MAP (C) and HR (D). A p-value < 0.05 represents a significant pooled mean difference of overall effect. Horizontal lines across each present 95% CI for each study. The diamond represents the 95% CI for pooled estimates of effect of mean difference. CL: contralateral arm; IV: inverse variance; PC: preconditioned; SD: standard deviation; Total: number of participants.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Marek-Trzonkowska N., Kwieczyńska A., Reiwer-Gostomska M., Koliński T., Molisz A., Siebert J. Arterial hypertension is characterized by imbalance of pro-angiogenic versus anti-angiogenic factors. PloS One. 2015;10(5) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126190. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. GBD 2017 Causes of Death Collaborators Global, regional, and national age-sex-specific mortality for 282 causes of death in 195 countries and territories, 1980–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2018;392(10159):1736–1788. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(18)32203-7. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Harrap S.B., Lung T., Chalmers J. New blood pressure guidelines pose difficult choices for Australian physicians. Circ. Res. 2019;124(7):975–977. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.118.314637. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Nguyen B., Bauman A., Ding D. Association between lifestyle risk factors and incident hypertension among middle-aged and older Australians. Prev. Med. 2019;118:73–80. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.10.007. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Whelton P.K., Carey R.M., Aronow W.S., Casey D.E., Collins K.J., Himmelfarb C.D., DePalma S.M., Gidding S., Jamerson K.A., Jones D.W. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on clinical practice guidelines. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2018;71(19):e127–e248. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.11.006. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources