| Literature DB >> 23525325 |
Shui-Bo Zhu1, Yong Liu, Yu Zhu, Gui-Lin Yin, Rong-Ping Wang, Yu Zhang, Jian Zhu, Wei Jiang.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Ischemia reperfusion injury is partly responsible for the high mortality associated with induced myocardial injury and the reduction in the full benefit of myocardial reperfusion. Remote ischemic preconditioning, perconditioning, and postconditioning have all been shown to be cardioprotective. However, it is still unknown which one is the most beneficial. To examine this issue, we used adult male Wistar rat ischemia reperfusion models to compare the cardioprotective effect of these three approaches applied on double-sided hind limbs.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23525325 PMCID: PMC3584272 DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2013(02)oa22
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) ISSN: 1807-5932 Impact factor: 2.365
Figure 1Animal experimental protocols and grouping.
Figure 2Period 1 corresponds to ischemia period and period 2, period 3, period 4, and period 5 represents the periods of 0-30 m, 30-60 m 60-120 m, 120-180 m post reperfusion, respectively.
Hemodynamic data obtained from each group of rat models at different time points.
| Hemodynamic data | Time point | Baseline | 30 min after ischemia | 30 min after reperfusion | 60 min after reperfusion | 120 min after reperfusion | 180 min after reperfusion |
| Sham | 139.2±18.5 | 133.6±19.8 | 136.4±28.4 | 125.2±24.2 | 115.7±23.2 | 112.7±26.7 | |
| IR | 126.4±18.2 | 100.5±19.7** | 115.9±24.9 | 113.7±26.0 | 103.2±27.4 | 90.2±29.2 | |
| RIPC | 135.5±23.2 | 110.4±44.2 | 101.6±33.8 | 104.1±36.7 | 92.7±40.4 | 86.5±34.6 | |
| RPerC | 148.9±31.4 | 113.7±26.3 | 114.7±27.7 | 109.0±19.4 | 108.8±26.2 | 95.1±30.1 | |
| RIPostC | 148.9±19.9 | 107.3±16.4 | 114.1±11.7 | 113.8±12.7 | 111.9±19.1 | 106.0±19.6 | |
| Sham | (-7.5)±7.9 | (-3.1)±8.3 | (-2.1)±9.9 | (-8.5)±10.2 | (-5.1)±8.4 | (-4.0)±6.9 | |
| IR | (-6.9)±7.3 | (-5.1)±5.7 | (-3.9)±6.8 | (-5.0)±6.3 | (-3.8)±6.8 | (-1.9)±5.7 | |
| RIPC | (-11.0)±3.7 | (-0.4)±7.5 | 4.6±7.8* | 1.7±6.5 | 2.1±3.7 | 3.2±3.7 | |
| RPerC | (-9.3)±9.3 | (-0.8)±9.4 | (-3.1)±7.5 | (-1.9)±7.5 | (-1.0)±6.6 | 0.3±4.8 | |
| RIPostC | (-9.0)±3.1 | (-4.1)±3.6 | (-0.9)±2.3 | (-1.0)±3.4 | 0.2±4.5 | 0.1±4.6 | |
| Sham | 5,366.1±1,557.9 | 4,806.4±1,722.6 | 5,383.9±1,988.2 | 5,195.7±1,902.7 | 4,069.3±1,111.9 | 3,808.8±1,237.2 | |
| IR | 5,421.1±924.5 | 2,849.9±1,188.8 | 3,963.9±978.7 | 3,998.4±978.7 | 3,477.9±1,210.9 | 2,736.2±1,212.7 | |
| RIPC | 5147.7±1899.5 | 3732.2±2447.7 | 3335.3±1976.4 | 3677.8±2234.4** | 3338.1±2427.8 | 2815.1±1845.2 | |
| RPerC | 5730.5±1270.0 | 4149.4±1792.2 | 4179.2±1460.1 | 3601.6±1018.3 | 3510.0±1193.7 | 3069.0±1538.5 | |
| RIPostC | 5825.3±1864.3 | 3357.2±1058.9 | 3558.4±1004.5 | 3503.2±1184.0 | 3518.3±1256.2 | 3130.0±1045.8 | |
| Sham | 3759.9±694.4 | 3816.9±910.7 | 3818.4±871.2 | 3714.8±786.1 | 2866.4±1075.8 | 2553.3±934.9 | |
| IR | 3495.3±692.5 | 2982.1±843.9 | 2740.0±617.5** | 2638.4±552.6** | 2292.0±850.5 | 1697.6±733.1 | |
| RIPC | 3943.2±1490.4 | 2678.9±1740.9 | 2419.0±1132.2 | 2578.8±1577.7 | 2088.9±1563.7 | 1958.3±1428.4 | |
| RPerC | 4159.0±969.8 | 3194.1±1236.4 | 2993.2±1007.6 | 2899.1±844.8 | 2544.9±917.4 | 2110.9±969.7 | |
| RIPostC | 3916.4±1543.0 | 2333.6±627.8 | 2725.5±729.3 | 2631.2±652.2 | 2522.6±913.2 | 2149.1±940.2 |
Notes: Data are represented as means±SD. IR, ischemia/reperfusion; RIPC, remote ischemic preconditioning; RPerC, remote ischemic perconditioning; RPostC, remote ischemic postconditioning; LVSP, left ventricle peak systolic pressure; LVEDP, left ventricular end-diastolic pressure; +dP/dtmax, maximal rate of increase in intraventricular pressure; -dP/dtmax, maximal rate of decrease in intraventricular pressure. **p<0.05 vs. sham group; *p<0.05 vs. IR group.
Figure 3Effects of RIPC, RPerC, and RIPostC on infarct size of rats' left ventricles. n = 5-6; *P<0.05 vs. IR group.
Data on Bcl-2 and Bax expression obtained from each group of rats.
| Groups | Bcl-2 (PU) | Bax (PU) | Bcl-2/Bax (PU) |
| 51.3±3.9 | 51.8±5.3 | 1.003±0.159 | |
| 56.9±2.6 | 40.3±6.4 | 1.463±0.290* | |
| 54.3±1.4* | 43.6±2.1* | 1.255±0.053* | |
| 56.9±1.4* | 42.9±13.5* | 1.461±0.541* |
Data are expressed as means±SD. Positive unit is abbreviated as PU. *p<0.05 vs. IR group.