| Literature DB >> 34195274 |
Andrea Romera1, María Cebollero2, Bárbara Romero-Gómez3, Francisco Carricondo3, Sara Zapatero1, Uxío García-Aldao1, Lorena Martín-Albo4, Javier Ortega4, Elena Vara5, Ignacio Garutti1, Carlos Simón4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ischemia-reperfusion injury is one of the most critical phenomena in lung transplantation and causes primary graft failure. Its pathophysiology remains incompletely understood, although the inflammatory response and apoptosis play key roles. Lidocaine has anti-inflammatory properties. The aim of this research is to evaluate the effect of intravenous lidocaine on the inflammatory and apoptotic responses in lung ischemia-reperfusion injury.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34195274 PMCID: PMC8203341 DOI: 10.1155/2021/6630232
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Hemodynamic and blood test results.
| Group | BAS | PRER | POSR60 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MAP (mmHg) | CON | 91 ± 7 | 91 ± 4 | 76 ± 5 |
| LIDO | 92 ± 6 | 82 ± 8 | 72 ± 7 | |
| SHAM | 93 ± 9 | 98 ± 6 | 93 ± 8 | |
|
| ||||
| HR (bpm) | CON | 87 ± 5 | 94 ± 4 | 97 ± 7 |
| LIDO | 87 ± 6 | 88 ± 4 | 87 ± 5 | |
| SHAM | 93 ± 8 | 90 ± 8 | 96 ± 4 | |
|
| ||||
| SVV (%) | CON | 12 ± 1 | 11 ± 1 | 9 ± 1 |
| LIDO | 17 ± 2 | 7 ± 1 | 9 ± 2 | |
| SHAM | 15 ± 1 | 9 ± 1 | 8 ± 1 | |
|
| ||||
| PaO2 (mmHg) | CON | 287 ± 26 | 205 ± 18 | 274 ± 65 |
| LIDO | 361 ± 47 | 222 ± 28 | 304 ± 22 | |
| SHAM | 313 ± 13 | 264 ± 16 | 330 ± 10 | |
|
| ||||
| PaCO2 (mmHg) | CON | 44 ± 5 | 37 ± 1 | 43 ± 3 |
| LIDO | 38 ± 2 | 39 ± 2 | 37 ± 2 | |
| SHAM | 41 ± 2 | 44 ± 3 | 47 ± 4 | |
|
| ||||
| pH | CON | 7.4 ± 0.04 | 7.5 ± 0.02 | 7.4 ± 0.03 |
| LIDO | 7.5 ± 0.03 | 7.5 ± 0.02 | 7.5 ± 0.03 | |
| SHAM | 7.5 ± 0.01 | 7.4 ± 0.02 | 7.4 ± 0.02 | |
Results are presented as mean ± typical error. BAS: baseline; PRER: prereperfusion; POSR60: postreperfusion 60 minutes; CON: control group; LIDO: group treated with lidocaine; SHAM: simulated surgery group; MAP: mean arterial pressure; HR: heart rate; SVV: stroke volume variation; PaO2: partial pressure of oxygen; PaCO2: partial pressure of carbon dioxide. No significant differences were observed among groups (p > 0.05).
Histopathological assessment of inflammation in ischemia-reperfusion lung injury by hematoxylin-eosin staining. Samples were collected 60 minutes after reperfusion.
| Group | Degree | Inflammation (∗, #) | Infiltration | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MM (∗, #) | Lymphocytes | Neutrophils | |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| CON | Absence | 1 | 16.7% | 1 | 16.7% | 2 | 33.3% | 6 | 100% |
| Scarce | 4 | 66.7% | 5 | 83.3% | 3 | 50% | 0 | 0% | |
| Moderate | 1 | 16.7% | 0 | 0% | 1 | 16.7% | 0 | 0% | |
| Abundant | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | |
|
| |||||||||
| LIDO | Absence | 5 | 83.3% | 5 | 83.3% | 5 | 83.3% | 6 | 100% |
| Scarce | 1 | 16.7% | 1 | 16.7% | 1 | 16.7% | 0 | 0% | |
| Moderate | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | |
| Abundant | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | |
|
| |||||||||
| SHAM | Absence | 5 | 83.3% | 6 | 100% | 5 | 83.3% | 6 | 100% |
| Scarce | 1 | 16.7% | 0 | 0% | 1 | 16.7% | 0 | 0% | |
| Moderate | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | |
| Abundant | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | |
MM: monocyte-macrophage system; N: number of cases in the group; P: percentage of cases in the group; CON: control group; LIDO: group treated with lidocaine; SHAM: simulated surgery group. ∗p < 0.05 SHAM vs. CON; #LIDO vs. CON.
Histopathological assessment of edema and congestion in ischemia-reperfusion lung injury by hematoxylin-eosin staining. Samples were collected 60 minutes after reperfusion.
| Group | Degree | Edema | Congestion | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| CON | Absence | 0 | 0% | 1 | 16.7% |
| Scarce | 5 | 83.3% | 5 | 83.3% | |
| Moderate | 1 | 16.7% | 0 | 0% | |
| Abundant | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | |
|
| |||||
| LIDO | Absence | 3 | 50% | 4 | 66.7% |
| Scarce | 3 | 50% | 1 | 16.7% | |
| Moderate | 0 | 0% | 1 | 16.7% | |
| Abundant | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | |
|
| |||||
| SHAM | Absence | 3 | 50% | 6 | 100% |
| Scarce | 3 | 50% | 0 | 0% | |
| Moderate | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | |
| Abundant | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | |
N: number of cases in the group; P: percentage of cases in the group; CON: control group; LIDO: group treated with lidocaine; SHAM: simulated surgery group. The degree of congestion was higher in the CON group than in the non-ischemia-reperfusion group (CON vs. SHAM, p = 0.005).