Self- or caregiver-delivered manual remote ischemic conditioning therapy in acute ischemic stroke is feasible: the Early Remote Ischemic Conditioning in Stroke (ERICS) trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Background:</ns4:bold> Infarct growth and recurrent stroke may be responsible for early morbidity and mortality in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) may reduce infarct growth and prevent recurrent stroke; however, the exact dose remains to be investigated. We hypothesized that self- or caregiver-delivered six cycles of RIC intervention in acute ischaemic stroke for the first 12 weeks is feasible and safe compared to the four cycles RIC intervention. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Methods:</ns4:bold> Adult ischemic stroke patients presenting within the first 48 h of symptom onset were screened. Patients with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evidence of acute infarct were randomized (1:1) to receive either four or six cycles of RIC therapy sessions two times daily in both arms for 12 weeks. All patients underwent MRI for infarct volume assessment and endothelial-dependent flow-mediated dilation (EDFMD) testing at baseline, 7 days and 12 weeks. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Results:</ns4:bold> A total of 57 patients with mean±SD age of 59.4±12.4 years and median National Institute of Stroke Scale, 4 (IQR, 3-7) were randomised at a median of 23 h 30 min (IQR, 10 h 20 min to 30 h) after symptom onset to either the four-cycle (n=27) or six-cycle group (n=30). A total of 18 (66%) patients completed ≥50% sessions in 12 weeks in the four-cycles group; 21 (69.7%) patients completed ≥50% sessions in 12 weeks in the six-cycle group (p=0.4). There was no between-group differences in infarct growth, early neurological deterioration, recurrent stroke, and EDFMD at 7 days and 90 days. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Conclusion:</ns4:bold> Both four and six cycles of short-term self- or caregiver-delivered RIC therapy is safe and may be feasible in acute ischaemic stroke patients. Randomised clinical trials are needed to assess efficacy to decrease infarct growth and prevent early neurological deterioration. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Registration:</ns4:bold> Clinical Trial Registry - India: <ns4:ext-link xmlns:ns3="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" ns3:href="http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/showallp.php?mid1=14948&EncHid=&userName=CTRI/2016/11/007495">CTRI/2016/11/007495</ns4:ext-link> ; registered on 25/11/2016. </ns4:p>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".