[Effects of remote ischemic preconditioning on perioperative period in elective aortic valve replacement].

Purpose of the Study: To evaluate the effects of remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) on the perioperative period in elective aortic valve replacement (AVR) along different anaesthesia techniques.
Materials and Methods: 48 patients aged 50 to 75 years (64 (56;69)) which were scheduled for AVR due to aortic valve stenosis were included into the prospective, randomized study. Four groups were formed after randomization: 1) RIPC applied during propofol anesthesia (RIPCprop, n = 12), 2) RIPC applied during sevoflurane anesthesia (RIPCsevo, n = 12), 3) propofol anesthesia without RIPC (CONTROLprop, n = 12), 4) sevoflurane anesthesia without RIPC (CONTROLsevo, n = 12). Groups were similar in baseline data of patients. RIPC protocol: three five-minutes episodes of simultaneous both lower limbs ischemia with five-minutes reperfusion intervals. Troponin I (cTrI), interleukin-6 (IL-6), Interleukin-8 (IL-8) and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were assessed prior to induction of anesthesia, at 30 min, 6, 12, 24 and 48 hours after the cessation of CPB. Significant differences were assessed by the nonparametric Mann-Whitney and Fisher's exact tests. Data are presented as: median (25th percentile, 75th percentile).
Results: . Significant differences in cTnI were found between RIPCsevo and CONTROLsevo groups at 6, 12 and 24 hours: 1.68 (1.28, 2.09) ng/ml vs 3.66 (2.07, 4.49) ng/ml, respectively at 6 hours (p = 0.04); 1.89 (1.59, 2.36) ng/ml vs 3.66 (2.91, 5.64) ng/ml, respectively at 12 hours (p = 0.001); 1.68 (1.55; 2.23) ng/ml vs 3.32 (2.10; 5.46) ng/ml, respectively at 24 hours (p = 0.01). There were no differences found in cTnI between RIPCprop and CONTROLprop groups during the whole study. There were no significant differences found in the levels of IL-6 and CRP between RIPC and control groups during the whole study Unexpectedly significant excess concentrations of IL-8 at 24 h were found when RIPC applied during sevoflurane anesthesia: 12.3 (10.6, 14.4) pg/mL in RIPCsevo group vs 6.2 (4.8, 11.1) pg/ml in CONTROLsevo group (p = 0.02). There was no paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) after RIPC, and 5 cases were registered in the control groups (p = 0.02). No other significant differences in the clinical course of the postoperative period were found.
Conclusions: Cardioprotective effect of RIPC and its effect on systemic inflammatory response should be assessed in the selected anesthesia groups. RIPC on the background of sevoflurane anesthesia reduces myocardial injury during AVR. RIPC does not reduce the severity of the systemic inflammatory response after AVR. RIPC reduces the risk of AF after AVR.