Table 2.
The Effect of RIPC on Coronary Physiology Indexes
| Marker | RIPC (n=15) | Sham (n=15) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre | Post | Mean Differencea | P Valueb | Pre | Post | Mean Differencea | P Valueb | |
| IMRcalc | 22.6 (17.9–25.6) | 17.5 (14.5–21.3) | 5.1 | 0.007 | 16.0 (10.8–20.5) | 16.8 (10.8–21.2) | 1.1 | 0.847 |
| IMRc | 24.3 (18.5–26.1) | 17.7 (13.2–21.7) | 5.1 | 0.005 | 16.1 (9.3–22.8) | 11.4 (10.6–24.7) | 1.0 | 0.820 |
| CFR | 2.6±0.9 | 3.8±1.7 | 1.2 | 0.001 | 3.1±1.5 | 3.1±1.6 | 0.0 | 0.971 |
| FFR | 0.83±0.06 | 0.83±0.07 | 0.0 | 0.999 | 0.82±0.08 | 0.81±0.09 | 0.0 | 0.052 |
Data are shown as mean±SD or median (interquartile range). CFR indicates coronary flow reserve; FFR, fractional flow reserve; IMR, index of microcirculatory resistance; IMRcalc, calculated index of microcirculatory resistance; RIPC, remote ischemic preconditioning.
a
Absolute difference in mean between pre and post within each cohort.
b
Comparison between pre and post values within each group was performed with the paired t test or Wilcoxon signed rank test for normally or non‐normally distributed data, respectively.
c
Patients with FFR >0.80: 12 in the RIPC group and 9 in the sham group.