Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity worldwide. There has been an extensive search for cardioprotective therapies to reduce myocardial ischemia-reperfusion (I/R) injury. Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) is a phenomenon that relies on the body's endogenous protective modalities against I/R injury. In RIPC, non-lethal brief I/R of one organ or tissue confers protection against subsequent lethal I/R injury in an organ remote to the briefly ischemic organ or tissue. Initially it was believed to be limited to direct myocardial protection, however it soon became apparent that RIPC applied to other organs such as kidney, liver, intestine, skeletal muscle can reduce myocardial infarct size. Intriguing discoveries have been made in extending the concept of RIPC to other organs than the heart. Over the years, the underlying mechanisms of RIPC have been widely sought and discussed. The involvement of blood-borne factors as mediators of RIPC has been suggested by a number of research groups. The main purpose of this review article is to summarize the possible circulating mediators of RIPC, and recent studies to establish the clinical efficacy of these mediators in cardioprotection from lethal I/R injury.

No abstract

Objective The poorest populations of the world lack access to quality healthcare. We defined the key components of consulting via mobile technology (mConsulting), explored whether mConsulting can fill gaps in access to quality healthcare for poor and spatially marginalised populations (specifically rural and slum populations) of low- and middle-income countries, and considered the implications of its take-up. Methods We utilised realist methodology. First, we undertook a scoping review of mobile health literature and searched for examples of mConsulting. Second, we formed our programme theories and identified potential benefits and hazards for deployment of mConsulting for poor and spatially marginalised populations. Finally, we tested our programme theories against existing frameworks and identified published evidence on how and why these benefits/hazards are likely to accrue. Results We identified the components of mConsulting, including their characteristics and range. We discuss the implications of mConsulting for poor and spatially marginalised populations in terms of competent care, user experience, cost, workforce, technology, and the wider health system. Conclusions For the many dimensions of mConsulting, how it is structured and deployed will make a difference to the benefits and hazards of its use. There is a lack of evidence of the impact of mConsulting in populations that are poor and spatially marginalised, as most research on mConsulting has been undertaken where quality healthcare exists. We suggest that mConsulting could improve access to quality healthcare for these populations and, with attention to how it is deployed, potential hazards for the populations and wider health system could be mitigated.