| Literature DB >> 35811313 |
Hang Su1, Diyu Lu1, Mingkui Shen2, Li Feng2, Chuangye Xu3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The molecular mechanisms of protective effect of metformin (Met) on ischemic myocardium have not been fully understood. This study aims to evaluate the cardioprotective effect of metformin on myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury (MIRI) in rat models at different time points using dynamic 18F-FDG micro-PET/CT imaging.Entities:
Keywords: 18F-FDG; Cardioprotective effect; Metformin; Myocardial ischemia–reperfusion injury (MIRI); PET/CT
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35811313 PMCID: PMC9272551 DOI: 10.1186/s12872-022-02750-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord ISSN: 1471-2261 Impact factor: 2.174
SUVmax values and LV function characteristics at different time points in Metformin group (n = 6) and Control group (n = 6)
| Indicators | Groups | Day 1st | Day 7th | Day 14th | Day 30th |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ischemia center (mm3) | Met | 2.02 ± 0.40 | 1.80 ± 1.16 | 2.31 ± 0.84 | 1.91 ± 0.18 |
| Con | 3.75 ± 2.33 | 3.20 ± 0.42 | 2.33 ± 0.17 | 3.22 ± 0.21 | |
| Peri-ischemia (mm3) | Met | 2.61 ± 0.33 | 2.51 ± 1.34 | 2.70 ± 0.68 | 2.15 ± 0.94 |
| Con | 4.32 ± 1.33 | 3.91 ± 0.98 | 2.85 ± 0.38 | 4.25 ± 0.98 | |
| Remote Area (mm3) | Met | 2.41 ± 0.80 | 2.14 ± 0.52 | 2.82 ± 0.88 | 2.33 ± 0.44 |
| Con | 4.15 ± 0.99 | 3.60 ± 0.17 | 2.80 ± 0.14 | 4.85 ± 0.41 | |
| Center/Remote ratio | Met | 0.71 ± 0.16 | 0.73 ± 0.05 | 0.78 ± 0.13 | 0.88 ± 0.06# |
| Con | 0.72 ± 0.18* | 0.77 ± 0.14* | 0.76 ± 0.17* | 0.72 ± 0.09#* | |
| ESV (mm3) | Met | 88.10 ± 15.58 | 60.10 ± 34.31 | 92.66 ± 36.50 | 68.00 ± 8.48 |
| Con | 80.50 ± 2.21 | 68.20 ± 24.55 | 99.12 ± 30.40 | 75.41 ± 6.23 | |
| EDV (mm3) | Met | 254.20 ± 70.19 | 291.61 ± 65.58 | 329.67 ± 74.60 | 358.21 ± 22.62# |
| Con | 217.12 ± 19.79* | 270.92 ± 26.61* | 349.67 ± 46.66* | 407.53 ± 29.91#* | |
| LVEF (%) | Met | 70.80 ± 2.24 | 79.59 ± 3.42 | 76.22 ± 3.12 | 81.01 ± 1.42 |
| Con | 67.85 ± 2.28 | 78.41 ± 2.45 | 73.09 ± 2.99 | 83.58 ± 1.12 |
Data are presented as mean ± SD or percentage (%) of subjects
ESV end-systolic volume, EDV end-diastolic volume, LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction
#Comparison between Met group and Control group, p < 0.05
*Correlation analysis between Center / Remote ratio and EDV, p < 0.05
Fig. 1Change of TBR (Center/Remote ratio) at different time points in Control Group and Met Group
Fig. 2Change of LV ESV and EDV at different time points in Control group and Met group. ESV end-systolic volume, EDV end-diastolic volume
Fig. 3Correlation analysis between EDV and TBR (Center/Remote ratio). EDV, end-diastolic volume
Fig. 4Representative PET/CT images of rat hearts at different time points from ischemia/reperfusion injury model
Fig. 5Representative HE staining of myocardial tissues in Control group and Met group after day 30th imaging acquisition in the ischemia center (×10) and remote area (×20)