Effects of sevoflurane and isoflurane on acute myocardial infarction model establishment in mice

IF 2.3 Q3 BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

Biochemistry and Biophysics Reports Pub Date : 2025-04-03 DOI:10.1016/j.bbrep.2025.102000

Jia-Nan Li, Liu-Hao-Nan Zeng, Lu Jin, Ji-Tong Liu

{"title":"Effects of sevoflurane and isoflurane on acute myocardial infarction model establishment in mice","authors":"Jia-Nan Li, Liu-Hao-Nan Zeng, Lu Jin, Ji-Tong Liu","doi":"10.1016/j.bbrep.2025.102000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The selection of anesthetic drugs in the preparation of an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) model is very important. We specifically focus on various effects of sevoflurane and isoflurane in a murine AMI model, which have not been previously compared. Furthermore, we evaluated success of our AMI model using following methods: echocardiography, TTC staining, and PCR testing. The results show that compared to the isoflurane group, the sevoflurane group mice had shorter anesthetic induction(66.40 ± 2.90S vs. 125.10 ± 6.30S P < 0.0001) and recovery times(28.00 ± 1.07S vs. 56.88 ± 4.14S, P < 0.0001), lower incidence of respiratory depression (0 % vs. 50.00 %, P = 0.0325), and more successful models (93.33 % vs. 60.00 %, P = 0.0801). There were no significant differences in cardiac function, infarction area(49.41 ± 4.18 % vs. 48.66 ± 3.79 %, P = 0.5266), or inflammatory factors in the myocardial infarction area between the two groups. Sevoflurane may therefore be a better choice for the establishment of AMI models in mice.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":8771,"journal":{"name":"Biochemistry and Biophysics Reports","volume":"42 ","pages":"Article 102000"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biochemistry and Biophysics Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405580825000871","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The selection of anesthetic drugs in the preparation of an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) model is very important. We specifically focus on various effects of sevoflurane and isoflurane in a murine AMI model, which have not been previously compared. Furthermore, we evaluated success of our AMI model using following methods: echocardiography, TTC staining, and PCR testing. The results show that compared to the isoflurane group, the sevoflurane group mice had shorter anesthetic induction(66.40 ± 2.90S vs. 125.10 ± 6.30S P < 0.0001) and recovery times(28.00 ± 1.07S vs. 56.88 ± 4.14S, P < 0.0001), lower incidence of respiratory depression (0 % vs. 50.00 %, P = 0.0325), and more successful models (93.33 % vs. 60.00 %, P = 0.0801). There were no significant differences in cardiac function, infarction area(49.41 ± 4.18 % vs. 48.66 ± 3.79 %, P = 0.5266), or inflammatory factors in the myocardial infarction area between the two groups. Sevoflurane may therefore be a better choice for the establishment of AMI models in mice.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Biochemistry and Biophysics Reports Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Biophysics

CiteScore

4.60

自引率

0.00%

发文量

191

审稿时长

59 days

期刊介绍： Open access, online only, peer-reviewed international journal in the Life Sciences, established in 2014 Biochemistry and Biophysics Reports (BB Reports) publishes original research in all aspects of Biochemistry, Biophysics and related areas like Molecular and Cell Biology. BB Reports welcomes solid though more preliminary, descriptive and small scale results if they have the potential to stimulate and/or contribute to future research, leading to new insights or hypothesis. Primary criteria for acceptance is that the work is original, scientifically and technically sound and provides valuable knowledge to life sciences research. We strongly believe all results deserve to be published and documented for the advancement of science. BB Reports specifically appreciates receiving reports on: Negative results, Replication studies, Reanalysis of previous datasets.