↓ Skip to main content

The remote ischemic preconditioning algorithm: effect of number of cycles, cycle duration and effector organ mass on efficacy of protection

Overview of attention for article published in Basic Research in Cardiology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
114 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
Title
The remote ischemic preconditioning algorithm: effect of number of cycles, cycle duration and effector organ mass on efficacy of protection
Published in
Basic Research in Cardiology, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00395-016-0529-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jacob Johnsen, Kasper Pryds, Rasha Salman, Bo Løfgren, Steen Buus Kristiansen, Hans Erik Bøtker

Abstract

Remote ischemic preconditioning (rIPC), induced by cycles of transient limb ischemia and reperfusion (IR), is cardioprotective. The optimal rIPC-algorithm is not established. We investigated the effect of cycle numbers and ischemia duration within each rIPC-cycle and the influence of effector organ mass on the efficacy of cardioprotection. Furthermore, the duration of the early phase of protection by rIPC was investigated. Using a tourniquet tightened at the inguinal level, we subjected C57Bl/6NTac mice to intermittent hind-limb ischemia and reperfusion. The rIPC-protocols consisted of (I) two, four, six or eight cycles, (II) 2, 5 or 10 min of ischemia in each cycle, (III) single or two hind-limb occlusions and (IV) 0.5, 1.5, 2.0 or 2.5 h intervals from rIPC to index cardiac ischemia. All rIPC algorithms were followed by 5 min of reperfusion. The hearts were subsequently exposed to 25 min of global ischemia and 60 min of reperfusion in an ex vivo Langendorff model. Cardioprotection was evaluated by infarct size and post-ischemic hemodynamic recovery. Four to six rIPC cycles yielded significant cardioprotection with no further protection by eight cycles. Ischemic cycles lasting 2 min offered the same protection as cycles of 5 min ischemia, whereas prolonged cycles lasting 10 min abrogated protection. One and two hind-limb preconditioning were equally protective. In our mouse model, the duration of protection by rIPC was 1.5 h. These findings indicate that the number and duration of cycles rather than the tissue mass exposed to rIPC determines the efficacy of rIPC.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 20%
Student > Master 11 20%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Researcher 6 11%
Lecturer 4 7%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 8 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 27%
Neuroscience 9 16%
Sports and Recreations 7 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 12 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 April 2017.
All research outputs
#15,454,502
of 22,965,074 outputs
Outputs from Basic Research in Cardiology
#451
of 649 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#233,109
of 396,495 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Basic Research in Cardiology
#6
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,965,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 649 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 396,495 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.