七氟醚对兔离体灌注心脏远端缺血预处理与麻醉诱导预处理相互作用的探讨。

IF 0.2 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Ewha Medical Journal Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-31 DOI:10.12771/emj.2024.e68
Seung-Hee Yoo, Sooyoung Cho, Yoonsun Won, Jong Wha Lee
{"title":"七氟醚对兔离体灌注心脏远端缺血预处理与麻醉诱导预处理相互作用的探讨。","authors":"Seung-Hee Yoo, Sooyoung Cho, Yoonsun Won, Jong Wha Lee","doi":"10.12771/emj.2024.e68","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objectives:</b> Remote ischemic preconditioning (rIPC) is a novel technique in which brief episodes of ischemia and reperfusion in one organ confer protection against prolonged ischemia in a distant organ. In contrast, anesthetic-induced preconditioning (APC) utilizes volatile anesthetics to protect multiple organs from ischemia-reperfusion injury. Both methods are easily integrated into various clinical scenarios for cardioprotection. However, it remains unclear whether simultaneous application of these techniques could result in complementary, additive, synergistic, or adverse effects. <b>Methods:</b> An adult rabbit heart Langendorff model of global ischemia/reperfusion injury was used to compare the cardioprotective effect of rIPC and APC alone and in combination relative to untreated (control) hearts. The rIPC group underwent four cycles of 5-minute ischemia on the hind limb, each followed by 5 minutes of reperfusion. The APC group received 2.5 vol% sevoflurane for 20 minutes via a face mask, followed by a 20-minute washout period. <b>Results:</b> Both <i>in vivo</i> rIPC, induced by four 5-minute cycles of ischemia/reperfusion on the hind limb, and APC, administered as 2.5 vol% sevoflurane via a mask, significantly reduced the size of myocardial infarction following 30 minutes of global ischemia by >50% compared to the untreated control group (rIPC, 12.1±1.7%; APC, 13.5±2.1%; P<0.01 compared to control, 31.3±3.0%). However, no additional protective effect was observed when rIPC and APC were combined (rIPC+APC, 14.4±3.3%). <b>Conclusion:</b> Although combining rIPC and APC did not provide additional protection, there was no inhibitory effect of one intervention on the other.</p>","PeriodicalId":41392,"journal":{"name":"Ewha Medical Journal","volume":"47 4","pages":"e68"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12093524/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploration of the interaction between remote ischemic preconditioning and anesthetic-induced preconditioning using sevoflurane in isolated perfused rabbit heart.\",\"authors\":\"Seung-Hee Yoo, Sooyoung Cho, Yoonsun Won, Jong Wha Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.12771/emj.2024.e68\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objectives:</b> Remote ischemic preconditioning (rIPC) is a novel technique in which brief episodes of ischemia and reperfusion in one organ confer protection against prolonged ischemia in a distant organ. In contrast, anesthetic-induced preconditioning (APC) utilizes volatile anesthetics to protect multiple organs from ischemia-reperfusion injury. Both methods are easily integrated into various clinical scenarios for cardioprotection. However, it remains unclear whether simultaneous application of these techniques could result in complementary, additive, synergistic, or adverse effects. <b>Methods:</b> An adult rabbit heart Langendorff model of global ischemia/reperfusion injury was used to compare the cardioprotective effect of rIPC and APC alone and in combination relative to untreated (control) hearts. The rIPC group underwent four cycles of 5-minute ischemia on the hind limb, each followed by 5 minutes of reperfusion. The APC group received 2.5 vol% sevoflurane for 20 minutes via a face mask, followed by a 20-minute washout period. <b>Results:</b> Both <i>in vivo</i> rIPC, induced by four 5-minute cycles of ischemia/reperfusion on the hind limb, and APC, administered as 2.5 vol% sevoflurane via a mask, significantly reduced the size of myocardial infarction following 30 minutes of global ischemia by >50% compared to the untreated control group (rIPC, 12.1±1.7%; APC, 13.5±2.1%; P<0.01 compared to control, 31.3±3.0%). However, no additional protective effect was observed when rIPC and APC were combined (rIPC+APC, 14.4±3.3%). <b>Conclusion:</b> Although combining rIPC and APC did not provide additional protection, there was no inhibitory effect of one intervention on the other.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":41392,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ewha Medical Journal\",\"volume\":\"47 4\",\"pages\":\"e68\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12093524/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ewha Medical Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12771/emj.2024.e68\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ewha Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12771/emj.2024.e68","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:远端缺血预处理(rIPC)是一种新的技术,在这种技术中,一个器官的短暂缺血和再灌注可以保护远端器官免受长时间缺血的影响。相比之下,麻醉诱导预处理(APC)利用挥发性麻醉剂保护多器官免受缺血再灌注损伤。这两种方法都很容易整合到各种临床场景中用于心脏保护。然而,目前尚不清楚这些技术的同时应用是否会导致互补、附加、协同或不利影响。方法:采用成年兔心脏全脑缺血再灌注损伤Langendorff模型,比较rIPC和APC单独及联合应用对未治疗(对照)心脏的保护作用。rIPC组后肢缺血4次,每次5分钟,再灌注5分钟。APC组通过面罩接受2.5 vol%七氟醚20分钟,然后是20分钟的洗脱期。结果:通过4个5分钟的后肢缺血/再灌注周期诱导的体内rIPC和面罩给药的2.5 vol%七氟醚APC,与未治疗的对照组相比,在30分钟的全身缺血后,心肌梗死的大小明显减少了50% (rIPC, 12.1±1.7%;APC, 13.5±2.1%;结论:虽然rIPC和APC联合使用没有额外的保护作用,但两种干预对另一种干预没有抑制作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Exploration of the interaction between remote ischemic preconditioning and anesthetic-induced preconditioning using sevoflurane in isolated perfused rabbit heart.

Exploration of the interaction between remote ischemic preconditioning and anesthetic-induced preconditioning using sevoflurane in isolated perfused rabbit heart.

Exploration of the interaction between remote ischemic preconditioning and anesthetic-induced preconditioning using sevoflurane in isolated perfused rabbit heart.

Objectives: Remote ischemic preconditioning (rIPC) is a novel technique in which brief episodes of ischemia and reperfusion in one organ confer protection against prolonged ischemia in a distant organ. In contrast, anesthetic-induced preconditioning (APC) utilizes volatile anesthetics to protect multiple organs from ischemia-reperfusion injury. Both methods are easily integrated into various clinical scenarios for cardioprotection. However, it remains unclear whether simultaneous application of these techniques could result in complementary, additive, synergistic, or adverse effects. Methods: An adult rabbit heart Langendorff model of global ischemia/reperfusion injury was used to compare the cardioprotective effect of rIPC and APC alone and in combination relative to untreated (control) hearts. The rIPC group underwent four cycles of 5-minute ischemia on the hind limb, each followed by 5 minutes of reperfusion. The APC group received 2.5 vol% sevoflurane for 20 minutes via a face mask, followed by a 20-minute washout period. Results: Both in vivo rIPC, induced by four 5-minute cycles of ischemia/reperfusion on the hind limb, and APC, administered as 2.5 vol% sevoflurane via a mask, significantly reduced the size of myocardial infarction following 30 minutes of global ischemia by >50% compared to the untreated control group (rIPC, 12.1±1.7%; APC, 13.5±2.1%; P<0.01 compared to control, 31.3±3.0%). However, no additional protective effect was observed when rIPC and APC were combined (rIPC+APC, 14.4±3.3%). Conclusion: Although combining rIPC and APC did not provide additional protection, there was no inhibitory effect of one intervention on the other.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ewha Medical Journal
Ewha Medical Journal MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
自引率
33.30%
发文量
28
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信