| Literature DB >> 32426516 |
Despoina Kakagia1, Apostolos Papalois2, Maria Lambropoulou3, Fotini Papachristou1, Gregory Trypsiannis4, Constantinos Anagnostopoulos5, Mike Pitiakoudis1, Alexandra Tsaroucha1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Peptic mucosal damage induced by acute stress is a serious cause of morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. The study aimed to investigate the protective, antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects of pretreatment with Chios mastic gum (CMG), a traditionally consumed herbal resin naturally deriving from the trunk of Pistacia Lentiscus var. Chia compared to Omeprazole, a standard medication used in the prevention and treatment of gastritis, against the effects of cold restraint stress (CRS) in rat gastric and colonic mucosa.Entities:
Keywords: Omeprazole; Pistacia Lentiscus Chia; cold restraint stress; colitis; gastric ulcer; oxidative stress
Year: 2020 PMID: 32426516 PMCID: PMC7216028 DOI: 10.2478/jccm-2020-0018
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Crit Care Med (Targu Mures) ISSN: 2393-1817
Fig. 1Gastric mucosa sections. HE x 200. Mucosal changes in: a. Chios mastic group: minimal hyperaemia and oedema, rare inflammatory cells, b. omeprazole group: mild hyperemia and oedema, minor deposits of inflammatory cells c. control: more extensive hyperemia and oedema and deposits of inflammatory cells, moderate hemorrhagic infiltration and pronounced loss of epithelial cells.
Gastric mucosal lesions in the three groups
| Groups | Multiple comparisons | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | O | M | p value | C vs O | C vs M | O vs M | |
| Hyperemia | 0.001a | ||||||
| Negative | 0 (0.0) | 2 (28.6) | 1 (14.3) | ||||
| Low | 0 (0.0) | 5 (71.4) | 6 (85.7) | ||||
| Moderate | 6 (85.7) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | ||||
| High | 1 (14.3) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | ||||
| Mean value (SD) | 2.14 (0.38) | 0.71 (0.49) | 0.86 (0.38) | <0.001b | <0.001c | <0.001c | 0.530c |
| Median value (min-max) | 2 (2 – 3) | 1 (0 – 1) | 1 (0 – 1) | <0.001d | 0.001e | 0.001e | 0.530e |
| Hemorrhagic infiltration | 0.001 | ||||||
| Negative | 0 (0.0) | 7 (100.0) | 6 (85.7) | ||||
| Low | 4 (57.1) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (14.3) | ||||
| Moderate | 3 (42.9) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | ||||
| High | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | ||||
| Mean value (SD) | 1.43 (0.54) | 0.0 (0.0) | 0.14 (0.38) | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.489 |
| Median value (min-max) | 1 (1 – 2) | 0 | 0 (0 – 1) | <0.001 | 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.317 |
| Loss EC | 0.084 | ||||||
| Negative | 0 (0.0) | 4 (57.1) | 3 (42.9) | ||||
| Low | 5 (71.4) | 3 (42.9) | 4 (57.1) | ||||
| Moderate | 2 (28.6) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | ||||
| High | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | ||||
| Mean value (SD) | 1.29 (0.49) | 0.43 (0.54) | 0.57 (0.54) | 0.014 | 0.006 | 0.019 | 0.613 |
| edian value (min-max) | 1 (1 – 2) | 0 (0 – 1) | 1 (0 – 1) | 0.026 | 0.015 | 0.030 | 0.606 |
| Oedema | 0.017 a | ||||||
| Negative | 0 (0.0) | 5 (71.4) | 4 (57.1) | ||||
| Low | 7 (100.0) | 2 (28.6) | 3 (42.9) | ||||
| Moderate | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | ||||
| High | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | ||||
| Mean value (SD) | 1.00 (0.0) | 0.29 (0.49) | 0.43 (0.54) | 0.012b | 0.005c | 0.020c | 0.530c |
| Median value (min-max) | 1 | 0 (0 – 1) | 0 (0 – 1) | 0.020d | 0.007e | 0.023e | 0.591e |
| Infiltration IC | 0.466 | ||||||
| Negative | 3 (42.9) | 5 (71.4) | 3 (42.9) | ||||
| Low | 4 (57.1) | 2 (28.6) | 4 (57.1) | ||||
| Moderate | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | ||||
| High | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | ||||
| Mean value (SD) | 0.57 (0.54) | 0.29 (0.49) | 0.57 (0.54) | 0.507 | 0.317 | 1.000 | 0.317 |
| Median value (min-max) | 1 (0 – 1) | 0 (0 – 1) | 1 (0 – 1) | 0.483 | 0.298 | 1.000 | 0.298 |
| Average histological score, mean (SD) | 6.43 (1.13) | 1.71 (0.95) | 2.57 (1.62) | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.221 |
a chi-square test; b ANOVA; c LSD test; d Kruskal-Wallis test; e Mann-Whitney Test U-test. C: Control O: Omeprazole M: Mastic Gum.
Fig. 2Graphic for statistic comparison of gastric mucosal lesions between the three groups.
Fig. 3Mucin containing mucosal Goblet Cells in histologic sections of the ascending colon, presenting as pink flower petals. Periodic acid–Schiff () X 200. a. after pre-treatment with CMG, b. after pre-treatment with Omeprazole and c. in the control group.
Mucosal lesions observed in the ascending colon in the three groups
| Groups | Multiple comparisons | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | O | M | p value | C vs O | C vs M | O vs M | |
| Hyperemia | 0.001a | ||||||
| Negative | 0 (0.0) | 3 (42.9) | 0 (0.0) | ||||
| Low | 1 (14.3) | 4 (57.1) | 7 (100.0) | ||||
| Moderate | 3 (42.9) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | ||||
| High | 3 (42.9) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | ||||
| Mean value (SD) | 2.29 (0.76) | 0.57 (0.54) | 1.00 (0.0) | <0.001b | <0.001c | <0.001c | 0.151c |
| Median value (min-max) | 2 (1 – 3) | 1 (0 – 1) | 1 | 0.001d | 0.003e | 0.003e | 0.060e |
| Hemorrhagic infiltration | 0.002 | ||||||
| Negative | 0 (0.0) | 7 (100.0) | 5 (71.4) | ||||
| Low | 3 (42.9) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (28.6) | ||||
| Moderate | 4 (57.1) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | ||||
| High | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | ||||
| Mean value (SD) | 1.57 (0.54) | 0.0 (0.0) | 0.29 (0.49) | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.217 |
| Median value (min-max) | 2 (1 – 2) | 0 | 0 (0 – 1) | <0.001 | 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.141 |
| Average Histological Score,mean (SD) | 3.86 (1.22) | 0.57 (0.54) | 1.29 (0.49) | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.119 |
| Number of Goblet cells | 50.54 (3.56) | 52.71 (2.84) | 52.51 (2.83) | 0.370 | 0.206 | 0.249 | 0.905 |
chi-square test; b ANOVA; c LSD test; d Kruskal-Wallis test; e Mann-Whitney Test U-test. C: Control O: Omeprazole M: Mastic Gum.
Fig. 4Graphic of statistic comparison of colonic mucosal lesions in the three groups
Serum antioxidant and anti-inflammatory markers in the three groups
| Groups | Multiple comparisonsb | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | O | M | p value a | C vs O | C vs M | O vs M | |
| μΜ Peroxidase/mg of protein | 0.151 (0.039) | 0.144 (0.027) | 0.110 (0.016) | 0.039 | 0.666 | 0.018 | 0.043 |
| mM TEAC/mg protein | 0.024 (0.006) | 0.028 (0.004) | 0.031 (0.009) | 0.277 | 0.386 | 0.114 | 0.450 |
| SOD U/mg protein | 0.156 (0.012) | 0.104 (0.016) | 0.087 (0.016) | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.047 |
| pg TNFa/mg protein | 0.999 (0.437) | 1.202 (0.396) | 0.653 (0.264) | 0.040 | 0.322 | 0.100 | 0.013 |
| pg IL1β/mg of protein | 4.399 (1.450) | 2.426 (0.762) | 1.587 (0.291) | <0.001 | 0.001 | <0.001 | 0.120 |
comparison between groups (one-way ANOVA); b pair-wise comparisons between groups (LSD test). C: Control O: Omeprazole M: Mastic Gum. TEAC: Trolox Equivalent antioxidant capacity, SOD: Superoxide dismutase.
Fig. 5Graphics of statistic comparison of antioxidant and anti- inflammatory markers between the three groups