Back

Remote Ischemic Perconditioning and 90-Day Cognitive Outcomes After Acute Ischemic Stroke: A REMOTE-CAT Substudy

Pereira, C.; REMOTE-CAT Trial Investigators, ; Arque, G.; Regue, A.; Mauri-Capdevila, G.; Jimenez-Fabrega, X.; Subirats, T.; Ropero, J. R.; Vicente-Pascual, M.; Rovira, A.; Salvany, S.; Garcia-Vazquez, C.; Cirer-Sastre, R.; Purroy, F.

2026-07-13 neurology
10.64898/2026.07.08.26357601 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Remote ischemic perconditioning (RIperC) is a simple, noninvasive neuroprotective strategy based on brief cycles of limb ischemia-reperfusion during cerebral ischemia. REMOTE-CAT suggested a potential functional benefit of prehospital RIperC in acute ischemic stroke. However, its effect on poststroke cognitive outcomes, which may not be fully captured by global disability scales, remains uncertain. Methods: We performed an exploratory cognitive substudy of the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled REMOTE-CAT trial. Patients with suspected acute ischemic stroke within 8 hours, prestroke modified Rankin Scale score <3, and RACE motor score >0 were randomized prehospital to RIperC or sham. RIperC consisted of five 5-minute cuff inflation-deflation cycles during ambulance transfer. At 90 days, patients from one center underwent a standardized neuropsychological battery assessing five cognitive domains. Results: Among 122 patients in the primary analysis, 58 (47.5%) completed neuropsychological assessment: 26 allocated to RIperC and 32 to sham. No statistically significant between-group differences were observed in domain-specific Z scores. Cognitive impairment in at least one domain was numerically less frequent with RIperC than sham (26.9% versus 34.4%). Impairment in more than one domain was also less frequent with RIperC (7.7% versus 21.9%), although the overall distribution of impaired domains did not differ significantly between groups (P=0.244). The largest domain-specific difference was observed for visual memory impairment (3.8% versus 21.9%). Conclusions: In this exploratory substudy, prehospital RIperC did not significantly improve 90-day cognitive outcomes after acute ischemic stroke. Nevertheless, RIperC-treated patients showed numerically favorable trends, particularly in global cognitive burden and visual memory. These hypothesis-generating findings support incorporating standardized cognitive outcomes in future ischemic conditioning trials.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Stroke
40 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.2%
2
Frontiers in Neurology
102 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.7%
3
Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.0%
50% of probability mass above
4
Journal of the American Heart Association
140 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.5%
5
BMC Neurology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.5%
6
Neurology
50 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.2%
7
Journal of Neurology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
8
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.4%
9
Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.3%
10
Brain and Behavior
43 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
11
Neurocritical Care
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
12
Journal of the Neurological Sciences
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.6%
13
Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.6%
14
European Journal of Neurology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
15
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
30 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
16
Brain Communications
166 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
17
Annals of Neurology
64 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
18
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
36 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
19
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 77%
0.6%
20
Experimental Brain Research
53 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%
21
Journal of Neurotrauma
31 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%
22
Brain Sciences
55 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
23
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 71%
0.5%
24
Disability and Rehabilitation
11 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.5%
25
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%