| Literature DB >> 34378644 |
Vinicius Luderer Dias1, Karina Andrighetti de Oliveira Braga1, Natalia Aparecida Nepomuceno1, Liliane Moreira Ruiz1, Juan David Ruiz Perez2, Aristides Tadeu Correia1, Luiz Carlos de Caires Junior3, Ernesto Goulart3, Mayana Zatz3, Paulo Manuel Pêgo-Fernandes1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The shortage of viable lungs is still a major obstacle for transplantation. Trauma victims who represent potential lung donors commonly present hypovolemic shock leading to pulmonary inflammation and deterioration and rejection after transplantation. Seeking to improve lung graft, new approaches to donor treatment have been tested. This study focuses on treatment with mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) or soluble factors produced by MSCs (FS-MSC) using a rat model for lung donors after hemorrhagic shock.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34378644 PMCID: PMC8647155 DOI: 10.36416/1806-3756/e20200452
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Bras Pneumol ISSN: 1806-3713 Impact factor: 2.624
Figure 1Timeline of the experimental procedure.
Figure 2Mean in vivo arterial blood pressure. A statistically significant difference is found in the groups subjected to hemorrhagic shock (Shock, FS and MSC) compared to baseline (¥ p<0.001). During the maintenance of hemorrhagic shock, there was a significant difference between the Shock, FS and MSC groups compared to the Sham group (¤ p<0.001). At the end of 70 minutes and at 190 minutes, the Shock, FS and MSC groups showed a statistically significant difference compared to the Sham group (∞p<0.05).
Figure 3(a) Number of peripheral blood leukocytes collected at the bigining and at the end of the experimental protocol in each group showing a statistically significant difference between the Shock, FS and MSC groups (p<0.001). The Sham group showed no difference between dosages (p=0.805); (b) Figure comparing the quantification of peripheral blood leukocytes in the study groups for the initial moment and end of the experiments. There was no significant difference at baseline between groups (p=0.33) as opposed to the end of the experiments between the groups (p=0.002). A difference was found in the multiple comparisons between Sham vs Shock (*p=0.02), Sham vs FS (**p=0.006), and Sham vs MSC (***p=0.01).
Figure 4Comparative chart for the neutrophilic infiltrate of the groups, measured as neutrophil density. There was a significant difference between the groups (p<0.001). In the multiple comparisons, there was a significant difference in the comparisons Sham vs Shock (*p<0.001), Sham vs MSC (*p<0.001), Shock vs FS (*p<0.001), and FS vs MSC (*p<0.001).