Literature DB >> 31854004

Hemodynamic evaluation of anesthetized baboons and piglets by transpulmonary thermodilution: Normal values and interspecies differences with respect to xenotransplantation.

Matthias Längin1, Mark Konrad2, Bruno Reichart3, Tanja Mayr1, Stephanie Vandewiele3,4, Johannes Postrach3,5, Maren Mokelke3, Julia Radan3, Paolo Brenner6, Andreas Bauer7, Jan-Michael Abicht1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Transpulmonary thermodilution is well established as a tool for in-depth hemodynamic monitoring of critically ill patients during surgical procedures and intensive care. It permits easy assessment of graft function following cardiac transplantation and guides post-operative volume and catecholamine therapy. Since no pulmonary catheter is needed, transpulmonary thermodilution could be useful in experimental cardiac pig-to-baboon xenotransplantation. However, normal values for healthy animals have not yet been reported. Here, we present data from piglets and baboons before xenotransplantation experiments and highlight differences between the two species and human reference values.
METHODS: Transpulmonary thermodilution from baboons (body weight 10-34 kg) and piglets (body weight 10-38kg) were analyzed. Measurements were taken in steady state after induction of general anesthesia before surgical procedures commenced. Cardiac index (CI), mean arterial pressure (MAP), systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI), parameters quantifying cardiac filling (global end-diastolic volume index, GEDI), and pulmonary edema (extravascular lung water, ELWI) were assessed.
RESULTS: Preload, afterload, and contractility parameters clearly correlated with total body weight or body surface area. Baboons had lower CI values than weight-matched piglets (4.2 ± 0.9l/min/m2 vs 5.3 ± 1.0/min/m2 , P < .01). MAP and SVRI were higher in baboons than piglets (MAP: 99 ± 22 mm Hg vs 62 ± 11 mm Hg, P < .01; SVRI: 1823 ± 581 dyn*s/cm5 *m2 vs 827 ± 204 dyn*s/cm5 *m2 , P < .01). GEDI and ELWI did differ significantly between both species, but measurements were within similar ranges (GEDI: 523 ± 103 mL/m2 vs 433 ± 78 mL/m2 , P < .01; ELWI: 10 ± 3 mL/kg vs 11 ± 2 mL/kg, P < .01). Regarding adult human reference values, CI was similar to both baboons and piglets, but all other parameters were different.
CONCLUSIONS: Parameters of preload, afterload, and contractility differ between baboons and piglets. In particular, baboons have a much higher afterload than piglets, which might be instrumental in causing perioperative xenograft dysfunction and post-operative myocardial hypertrophy after orthotopic pig-to-baboon cardiac xenotransplantation. Most transpulmonary thermodilution-derived parameters obtained from healthy piglets and baboons lie outside the reference ranges for humans, so human normal values should not be used to guide treatment in those animals. Our data provide reference values as a basis for developing algorithms for perioperative hemodynamic management in pig-to-baboon cardiac xenotransplantation.
© 2019 The Authors. Xenotransplantation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  baboon; cardiac transplantation; hemodynamic monitoring; perioperative management; reference range; transpulmonary thermodilution; xenotransplantation

Year:  2019        PMID: 31854004     DOI: 10.1111/xen.12576

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Xenotransplantation        ISSN: 0908-665X            Impact factor:   3.907


  4 in total

1.  Biochemical and Hematologic Reference Intervals for Anesthetized, Female, Juvenile Yorkshire Swine.

Authors:  Nikolaos Dimitrakakis; Anna Waterhouse; Shanda Lightbown; Daniel C Leslie; Amanda Jiang; Dana E Bolgen; Kayla Lightbown; Kelly Cascio; Gabriela Aviles; Elizabeth Pollack; Sam Jurek; Kathryn Donovan; Julia B Hicks-Berthet; Kazuo Imaizumi; Michael Super; Donald E Ingber; Arthur Nedder
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2021-12-13       Impact factor: 1.706

2.  The growth of xenotransplanted hearts can be reduced with growth hormone receptor knockout pig donors.

Authors:  Corbin E Goerlich; Bartley Griffith; Peter Hanna; Susie N Hong; David Ayares; Avneesh K Singh; Muhammad M Mohiuddin
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2021-09-04       Impact factor: 5.209

Review 3.  Cardiac Xenotransplantation: Progress in Preclinical Models and Prospects for Clinical Translation.

Authors:  Avneesh K Singh; Corbin E Goerlich; Aakash M Shah; Tianshu Zhang; Ivan Tatarov; David Ayares; Keith A Horvath; Muhammad M Mohiuddin
Journal:  Transpl Int       Date:  2022-03-23       Impact factor: 3.782

Review 4.  Cardiac Xenotransplantation: Challenges, Evolution, and Advances.

Authors:  Jacinthe Boulet; Jonathan W Cunningham; Mandeep R Mehra
Journal:  JACC Basic Transl Sci       Date:  2022-06-15
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.