{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017953321364452424, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0017953321364452424, 'mean_word_length': 5.488372093023256, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Remote ischemic conditioning: Feeling the squeeze

• Adjunctive strategies to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) that limit infarct size represent an unmet clinical need. • The ability of remote ischemic conditioning to improve clinical outcomes in acute myocardial infarction treated with pPCI is not supported by clinical trials. • The current study is consistent and found no improvement in myocardial salvage index by MRI at 6 months in patients with pPCI for anterior STEMI randomized to remote ischemic per-postconditioning versus sham.