Keziban Oral1, Mert Akan2, Sevda Özkardeşler3, Nilay Boztaş3, Bekir Uğur Ergür4, Mehmet Ensari Güneli5, Çimen Olguner3, Hatice Fidan6. 1. Department of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, Katip Çelebi University, İzmir, Turkey. 2. Department of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, Kent Hospital, İzmir, Turkey. 3. Department of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, Dokuz Eylül University School of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey. 4. Department of Histology, Dokuz Eylül University School of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey. 5. Laboratory Animal Department, Dokuz Eylül University School of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey. 6. Department of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, Ereğli Hospital, Zonguldak, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: One of the methods that can be used to prevent ischaemia reperfusion (IR) injury is ischaemic preconditioning. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the effects of remote and direct ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC and DIPC) histopathologically in the rat renal IR injury model. METHODS: After obtaining an approval from the Dokuz Eylül University School of Medicine Ethics Committee, 28 Wistar Albino male rats were divided into four groups. In Group I (Sham, n=7), laparotomy and left renal pedicle dissection were performed, but nothing else was done. In Group II (IR, n=7), after 45 minutes of left renal pedicle occlusion, reperfusion lasting 4 hours was performed. In Group III (DIPC+IR, n=7), after four cycles of ischaemic preconditioning applied to the left kidney, renal IR was performed. In Group IV (RIPC+IR, n=7), after three cycles of ischaemic preconditioning applied to the left hind leg, renal IR was performed. All rats were sacrificed, and the left kidney was processed for conventional histopathology. RESULTS: The histopathological injury score of the kidney was significantly lower in the sham group compared with the other groups (p<0.01). The injury scores of the DIPC+IR and RIPC+IR groups were significantly lower than in the IR group (p<0.05). In the RIPC+IR group, the injury score for erythrocyte extravasation was found to be significantly lower than in the DIPC+IR group (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: In the present study, it was demonstrated that both DIPC and RIPC decreased renal IR injury, but RIPC was found to be more effective than DIPC. This protective effect requiresfurther detailed experimental and clinical studies.
OBJECTIVE: One of the methods that can be used to prevent ischaemia reperfusion (IR) injury is ischaemic preconditioning. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the effects of remote and direct ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC and DIPC) histopathologically in the rat renal IR injury model. METHODS: After obtaining an approval from the Dokuz Eylül University School of Medicine Ethics Committee, 28 Wistar Albino male rats were divided into four groups. In Group I (Sham, n=7), laparotomy and left renal pedicle dissection were performed, but nothing else was done. In Group II (IR, n=7), after 45 minutes of left renal pedicle occlusion, reperfusion lasting 4 hours was performed. In Group III (DIPC+IR, n=7), after four cycles of ischaemic preconditioning applied to the left kidney, renal IR was performed. In Group IV (RIPC+IR, n=7), after three cycles of ischaemic preconditioning applied to the left hind leg, renal IR was performed. All rats were sacrificed, and the left kidney was processed for conventional histopathology. RESULTS: The histopathological injury score of the kidney was significantly lower in the sham group compared with the other groups (p<0.01). The injury scores of the DIPC+IR and RIPC+IR groups were significantly lower than in the IR group (p<0.05). In the RIPC+IR group, the injury score for erythrocyte extravasation was found to be significantly lower than in the DIPC+IR group (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: In the present study, it was demonstrated that both DIPC and RIPC decreased renal IR injury, but RIPC was found to be more effective than DIPC. This protective effect requiresfurther detailed experimental and clinical studies.
Authors: R K Kharbanda; M Peters; B Walton; M Kattenhorn; M Mullen; N Klein; P Vallance; J Deanfield; R MacAllister Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-03-27 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: C Olguner; U Koca; A Kar; A Karci; H Işlekel; M Canyilmaz; O Mavioĝlu; S Kizildaĝ; G Unlü; Z Elar Journal: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 2.105
Authors: C Peralta; L Fernández; J Panés; N Prats; M Sans; J M Piqué; E Gelpí; J Roselló-Catafau Journal: Hepatology Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 17.425