Table 3.
Comparison of the Effect of RIPC and Sham on Coronary Physiology Indexes
| Marker | RIPC (n=15) | Sham (n=15) | P Valuea |
|---|---|---|---|
| IMRcalc | −18.1±24.8% | +6.1±37.5% | 0.047 |
| IMRb | −22.5±25.2% | +6.8±45.5% | 0.074 |
| CFR | +41.2% (20.0–61.7) | −7.8% (−19.1 to 10.3) | <0.001 |
| FFR | 0.0% (−2.4 to 1.4) | −1.5% (−3.4 to 1.2) | 0.269 |
Relative change in index with RIPC/sham is shown, with negative (−) values indicating a reduction after treatment compared with before treatment and positive (+) values indicating an increase. 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.
Comparison of relative change in RIPC cohort with relative change in sham cohort with the unpaired t test or Mann–Whitney U test for normally and nonnormally distributed data, respectively.
Patients with FFR >0.80: 12 in the RIPC group and the 9 in sham group.