Eva Kottenberg1, Judith Musiolik2, Matthias Thielmann3, Heinz Jakob3, Jürgen Peters4, Gerd Heusch2. 1. Klinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Germany. Electronic address: eva.kottenberg@uni-duisburg-essen.de. 2. Institut für Pathophysiologie, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Germany. 3. Klinik für Thorax- und Kardiovaskuläre Chirurgie, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Germany. 4. Klinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:Remote ischemic preconditioning protects the myocardium from ischemia/reperfusion injury. We recently identified protection by remote ischemic preconditioning to be associated with the activation of signal transducer and activator of transcription 5 in left ventricular biopsy specimens of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting during isoflurane anesthesia. Because remote ischemic preconditioning did not protect the heart during propofol anesthesia, we hypothesized that propofol anesthesia interferes with signal transducer and activator of transcription 5 activation. METHODS: In a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled, prospective study, we analyzed an array of established cardioprotective proteins during propofol anesthesia with or without remote ischemic preconditioning in 24 nondiabetic patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease. RESULTS:Remote ischemic preconditioning (n = 12) compared with no remote ischemic preconditioning (n = 12) failed to decrease the area under the troponin I time curve (273 ± 184 ng/mL × 72 hours vs 365 ± 301 ng/mL × 72 hours; P = .374). Although phosphorylation of several protein kinases was increased from baseline to reperfusion, signal transducer and activator of transcription 5 phosphorylation was not increased and was not different between the remote ischemic preconditioning and no remote ischemic preconditioning groups. CONCLUSIONS:Remote ischemic preconditioning during propofol anesthesia did not evoke either signal transducer and activator of transcription 5 activation or cardioprotection, implying interaction of propofol with cardioprotective signaling upstream of signal transducer and activator of transcription 5.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Remote ischemic preconditioning protects the myocardium from ischemia/reperfusion injury. We recently identified protection by remote ischemic preconditioning to be associated with the activation of signal transducer and activator of transcription 5 in left ventricular biopsy specimens of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting during isoflurane anesthesia. Because remote ischemic preconditioning did not protect the heart during propofol anesthesia, we hypothesized that propofol anesthesia interferes with signal transducer and activator of transcription 5 activation. METHODS: In a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled, prospective study, we analyzed an array of established cardioprotective proteins during propofol anesthesia with or without remote ischemic preconditioning in 24 nondiabeticpatients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease. RESULTS: Remote ischemic preconditioning (n = 12) compared with no remote ischemic preconditioning (n = 12) failed to decrease the area under the troponin I time curve (273 ± 184 ng/mL × 72 hours vs 365 ± 301 ng/mL × 72 hours; P = .374). Although phosphorylation of several protein kinases was increased from baseline to reperfusion, signal transducer and activator of transcription 5 phosphorylation was not increased and was not different between the remote ischemic preconditioning and no remote ischemic preconditioning groups. CONCLUSIONS: Remote ischemic preconditioning during propofol anesthesia did not evoke either signal transducer and activator of transcription 5 activation or cardioprotection, implying interaction of propofol with cardioprotective signaling upstream of signal transducer and activator of transcription 5.
Keywords:
1; 31; 38; CABG; CPB; LV; RIPC; STAT; area under the cTnI time curve; cTnI; cTnI AUC; cardiac troponin I; cardiopulmonary bypass; coronary artery bypass grafting; left ventricular; remote ischemic preconditioning; signal transducer and activator of transcription
Authors: Hans Erik Bøtker; Derek Hausenloy; Ioanna Andreadou; Salvatore Antonucci; Kerstin Boengler; Sean M Davidson; Soni Deshwal; Yvan Devaux; Fabio Di Lisa; Moises Di Sante; Panagiotis Efentakis; Saveria Femminò; David García-Dorado; Zoltán Giricz; Borja Ibanez; Efstathios Iliodromitis; Nina Kaludercic; Petra Kleinbongard; Markus Neuhäuser; Michel Ovize; Pasquale Pagliaro; Michael Rahbek-Schmidt; Marisol Ruiz-Meana; Klaus-Dieter Schlüter; Rainer Schulz; Andreas Skyschally; Catherine Wilder; Derek M Yellon; Peter Ferdinandy; Gerd Heusch Journal: Basic Res Cardiol Date: 2018-08-17 Impact factor: 17.165
Authors: Aida Oliván-Viguera; María Pérez-Zabalza; Laura García-Mendívil; Konstantinos A Mountris; Sofía Orós-Rodrigo; Estel Ramos-Marquès; José María Vallejo-Gil; Pedro Carlos Fresneda-Roldán; Javier Fañanás-Mastral; Manuel Vázquez-Sancho; Marta Matamala-Adell; Fernando Sorribas-Berjón; Javier André Bellido-Morales; Francisco Javier Mancebón-Sierra; Alexánder Sebastián Vaca-Núñez; Carlos Ballester-Cuenca; Miguel Ángel Marigil; Cristina Pastor; Laura Ordovás; Ralf Köhler; Emiliano Diez; Esther Pueyo Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-11-17 Impact factor: 4.379