Javier Casanova1, Carlos Simon2, Elena Vara3, Guillermo Sanchez4, Lisa Rancan3, Selma Abubakra4, Alberto Calvo3, Francisco Jose Gonzalez4, Ignacio Garutti4. 1. Anesthesiologist in cardiothoracic section, Anesthesiology Department, Gregorio Marañon Hospital, Doctor Esquerdo Street 46, 28007, Madrid, Spain. kassss1@yahoo.es. 2. Thoracic Surgery Department, Gregorio Marañon Hospital, Madrid, Spain. 3. Biochemistry Department, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain. 4. Anesthesiologist in cardiothoracic section, Anesthesiology Department, Gregorio Marañon Hospital, Doctor Esquerdo Street 46, 28007, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The glycocalyx is a glycoprotein-polysaccaride layer covering the endothelium luminal surface, and plays a key regulatory role in several endothelial functions. Lung ischemia reperfusion (IR) is a clinical entity that occurs in everyday thoracic surgery and causes glycocalix destruction and a florid local and systemic immune response. Moreover, sevoflurane is able to modulate the inflammatory response triggered by IR lung injury. In this study, we evaluated the protective effects of sevoflurane on the pulmonary endothelial glycocalyx in an in-vivo lung autotransplant model in pigs. METHODS: Sixteen Large White pigs underwent pneumonectomy plus lung autotransplant. They were divided into two groups depending on the hypnotic agent received (propofol or anesthetic preconditioning with sevoflurane). Glycocalyx components (syndecan-1 and heparan sulphate), cathepsin B, chemokines (MCP-1, MIP-1, and MIP-2) and adhesion molecules (VCAM and ICAM-1) were measured at four different timepoints using porcine-specific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits. RESULTS: There were no differences between groups in weight or in surgical and one-lung ventilation time. Greater glycocalyx destruction and higher chemokine and adhesion molecule expression were observed in the group that did not receive sevoflurane. Heparan sulphate and serum syndecan levels were higher in the propofol group (P < 0.0001) after reperfusion, as was cathepsin B activity (P < 0.015). MCP-1, MIP-1, MIP-2, VCAM, and ICAM-1 levels were also higher in the propofol group (P < 0.006). CONCLUSION: Sevoflurane preconditioning protects pulmonary glycocalyx and reduces expression of leukocyte chemokines in an in-vivo model of pulmonary IR.
PURPOSE: The glycocalyx is a glycoprotein-polysaccaride layer covering the endothelium luminal surface, and plays a key regulatory role in several endothelial functions. Lung ischemia reperfusion (IR) is a clinical entity that occurs in everyday thoracic surgery and causes glycocalix destruction and a florid local and systemic immune response. Moreover, sevoflurane is able to modulate the inflammatory response triggered by IR lung injury. In this study, we evaluated the protective effects of sevoflurane on the pulmonary endothelial glycocalyx in an in-vivo lung autotransplant model in pigs. METHODS: Sixteen Large Whitepigs underwent pneumonectomy plus lung autotransplant. They were divided into two groups depending on the hypnotic agent received (propofol or anesthetic preconditioning with sevoflurane). Glycocalyx components (syndecan-1 and heparan sulphate), cathepsin B, chemokines (MCP-1, MIP-1, and MIP-2) and adhesion molecules (VCAM and ICAM-1) were measured at four different timepoints using porcine-specific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits. RESULTS: There were no differences between groups in weight or in surgical and one-lung ventilation time. Greater glycocalyx destruction and higher chemokine and adhesion molecule expression were observed in the group that did not receive sevoflurane. Heparan sulphate and serum syndecan levels were higher in the propofol group (P < 0.0001) after reperfusion, as was cathepsin B activity (P < 0.015). MCP-1, MIP-1, MIP-2, VCAM, and ICAM-1 levels were also higher in the propofol group (P < 0.006). CONCLUSION:Sevoflurane preconditioning protects pulmonary glycocalyx and reduces expression of leukocyte chemokines in an in-vivo model of pulmonary IR.
Authors: Sietze Reitsma; Dick W Slaaf; Hans Vink; Marc A M J van Zandvoort; Mirjam G A oude Egbrink Journal: Pflugers Arch Date: 2007-01-26 Impact factor: 3.657
Authors: T Annecke; D Chappell; C Chen; M Jacob; U Welsch; C P Sommerhoff; M Rehm; P F Conzen; B F Becker Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: Eliana Lucchinetti; Sandro Ambrosio; José Aguirre; Patrick Herrmann; Luc Härter; Marius Keel; Thomas Meier; Michael Zaugg Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Markus Rehm; Stefan Zahler; Michael Lötsch; Ulrich Welsch; Peter Conzen; Matthias Jacob; Bernhard Friedrich Becker Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Daniel Chappell; Matthias Jacob; Klaus Hofmann-Kiefer; Markus Rehm; Ulrich Welsch; Peter Conzen; Bernhard F Becker Journal: Cardiovasc Res Date: 2009-03-22 Impact factor: 10.787
Authors: Yung-Yang Liu; Cheng-Hung Lee; Rejmon Dedaj; Hang Zhao; Hicham Mrabat; Aviva Sheidlin; Olga Syrkina; Pei-Ming Huang; Hari G Garg; Charles A Hales; Deborah A Quinn Journal: Crit Care Date: 2008-08-08 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Chung-Sik Oh; Ji Min Choi; Eun Hi Park; Liyun Piao; Hyun-Jun Park; Ka-Young Rhee; Seong-Hyop Kim Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2021-01-23 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Laura S Murphy; Nancy Wickersham; J Brennan McNeil; Ciara M Shaver; Addison K May; Julie A Bastarache; Lorraine B Ware Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2017-10-06 Impact factor: 6.925