D T Andrews1, A G Royse, C F Royse. 1. Cardiovascular and Therapeutics Unit, Department of Pharmacology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. andrewsdt@me.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) pressure-volume (PV) loops were used to compare the functional effects that accompany the cardioprotection seen with desflurane, sevoflurane, and propofol in a rabbit preparation of coronary ischaemia-reperfusion (IR). METHODS: Male New Zealand White rabbits (n=48) were anaesthetized with propofol (70 mg kg(-1) h(-1)), desflurane (8.9%), or sevoflurane (3.8%) and randomized to receive IR or non-ischaemic time-matched (TC) perfusion protocol. IR groups (desIR, propIR, and sevIR) underwent 30 min of left anterior descending coronary artery occlusion and then 120 min of reperfusion. TC groups (desTC, propTC, and sevTC) were anaesthetized for 150 min without ischaemia. Haemodynamic endpoints included mean arterial pressure, heart rate, cardiac index, systemic vascular resistance index, preload-recruitable stroke-work, time constant of relaxation (tau), and end-diastolic PV relationship (EDPVR). Ventricles in the IR groups were excised and stained with 2,3,5-triphenyl-tetrazolium chloride in order to measure infarct size. RESULTS: Myocardial infarction size was greater in the propIR group [35.74 (sd 11.32)%] compared with the desIR [13.44 (3.09)%] and sevIR [17.96 (6.63)%] groups (P<0.001). EDPVR deteriorated in the sevIR and propIR groups compared with their TC groups, sevTC (P=0.03) and propTC (P=0.044), respectively. There was no difference in any haemodynamic endpoints for the desIR group compared with its TC control (desTC). CONCLUSIONS: During ischaemia, all anaesthetics provide haemodynamic stability and preservation of LV contractility, whereas propofol and sevoflurane, but not desflurane, caused increased LV diastolic stiffness. Desflurane and sevoflurane provide superior cardioprotection compared with propofol.
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) pressure-volume (PV) loops were used to compare the functional effects that accompany the cardioprotection seen with desflurane, sevoflurane, and propofol in a rabbit preparation of coronary ischaemia-reperfusion (IR). METHODS: Male New Zealand White rabbits (n=48) were anaesthetized with propofol (70 mg kg(-1) h(-1)), desflurane (8.9%), or sevoflurane (3.8%) and randomized to receive IR or non-ischaemic time-matched (TC) perfusion protocol. IR groups (desIR, propIR, and sevIR) underwent 30 min of left anterior descending coronary artery occlusion and then 120 min of reperfusion. TC groups (desTC, propTC, and sevTC) were anaesthetized for 150 min without ischaemia. Haemodynamic endpoints included mean arterial pressure, heart rate, cardiac index, systemic vascular resistance index, preload-recruitable stroke-work, time constant of relaxation (tau), and end-diastolic PV relationship (EDPVR). Ventricles in the IR groups were excised and stained with 2,3,5-triphenyl-tetrazolium chloride in order to measure infarct size. RESULTS:Myocardial infarction size was greater in the propIR group [35.74 (sd 11.32)%] compared with the desIR [13.44 (3.09)%] and sevIR [17.96 (6.63)%] groups (P<0.001). EDPVR deteriorated in the sevIR and propIR groups compared with their TC groups, sevTC (P=0.03) and propTC (P=0.044), respectively. There was no difference in any haemodynamic endpoints for the desIR group compared with its TC control (desTC). CONCLUSIONS: During ischaemia, all anaesthetics provide haemodynamic stability and preservation of LV contractility, whereas propofol and sevoflurane, but not desflurane, caused increased LV diastolic stiffness. Desflurane and sevoflurane provide superior cardioprotection compared with propofol.