首页> 外文期刊>Experimental and therapeutic medicine >Cardioprotective effect of remote preconditioning of trauma and remote ischemia preconditioning in a rat model of myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury
【24h】

Cardioprotective effect of remote preconditioning of trauma and remote ischemia preconditioning in a rat model of myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury

机译:远程预伤和远程缺血预适应在大鼠心肌缺血/再灌注损伤中的心脏保护作用

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Remote ischemia preconditioning (RIPC) and remote preconditioning of trauma (RPCT) are two methods used to induce a cardioprotective function against ischemia/reperfusion injury (IRI). However, the underlying mechanisms of these two methods differ. The aim of the present study was to investigate the cardioprotective function of the two methods, and also observe whether combining RIPC with RPCT enhanced the protective effect. In total, 70 male Sprague Dawley rats were randomly divided into five groups, which included the sham, control, RIPC + RPCT, RPCT and RIPC groups. With the exception of the sham group, all the rats were subjected to myocardial IRI through the application of 30 min occlusion of the left coronary artery and 180 min reperfusion. Serum cardiac troponin I (cTnI) levels, myocardial infarct size (IS) and the cardiomyocyte apoptotic index (AI) were assessed. The levels of serum cTnI were lower in the experimental groups when compared with the control group (control, 58.59 +/- 12.50 pg/ml; RIPC + RPCT, 46.05 +/- 8.62 pg/ml; RPCT, 45.98 +/- 11.24 pg/ml; RIPC, 43.46 +/- 5.05 pg/ml; P<0.05, vs. control), and similar results were observed for the myocardial IS (control, 48.34 +/- 6.79%; RIPC + RPCT, 29.64 +/- 4.51%; RPCT, 29.05 +/- 8.51%; RIPC, 27.72 +/- 6.27%; P<0.05, vs. control) and the AT (control, 31.75 +/- 10.65%; RIPC + RPCT, 18.32 +/- 9.30%; RPCT, 18.51 +/- 9.26%; RIPC, 20.41 +/- 3.86%; P<0.05, vs. control). However, no statistically significant differences were observed among the three experimental groups (P>0.05). Therefore, RIPC and RPCT exhibit cardioprotective effects when used alone or in combination. However, a combination of RIPC and RPCT does not enhance the cardioprotective effect observed with the application of either single method. Therefore, for patients undergoing Major abdominal surgery, RIPC was considered to be unnecessary, while for patients undergoing other types of non-cardiac major surgery and minimally invasive interventional surgery, RIPC may be useful. In addition, patients with embolism diseases are also liable to IRI when reperfusion treatment such as thrombolysis is conducted. Thus RIPC may also be beneficial for these patients.
机译:远程缺血预处理(RIPC)和远程创伤预处理(RPCT)是用于诱导针对缺血/再灌注损伤的心脏保护功能的两种方法。但是,这两种方法的基本机制不同。本研究的目的是研究两种方法的心脏保护功能,并观察RIPC和RPCT的组合是否增强了保护作用。总共将70只雄性Sprague Dawley大鼠随机分为5组,包括假手术组,对照组,RIPC + RPCT,RPCT和RIPC组。除假手术组外,所有大鼠均通过左冠状动脉闭塞30分钟和再灌注180分钟进行心肌IRI。评估血清心肌肌钙蛋白I(cTnI)水平,心肌梗死面积(IS)和心肌细胞凋亡指数(AI)。与对照组相比,实验组的血清cTnI水平较低(对照组为58.59 +/- 12.50 pg / ml; RIPC + RPCT为46.05 +/- 8.62 pg / ml; RPCT为45.98 +/- 11.24 pg / ml /ml;RIPC,43.46 +/- 5.05 pg / ml;与对照相比,P <0.05,对心肌IS观察到相似的结果(对照,48.34 +/- 6.79%; RIPC + RPCT,29.64 +/- 4.51%; RPCT,29.05 +/- 8.51%; RIPC,27.72 +/- 6.27%; P <0.05,与对照组相比)和AT(对照组,31.75 +/- 10.65%; RIPC + RPCT,18.32 +/- 9.30%; RPCT,18.51 +/- 9.26%; RIPC,20.41 +/- 3.86%;与对照相比,P <0.05)。然而,三个实验组之间没有观察到统计学上的显着差异(P> 0.05)。因此,当单独或组合使用时,RIPC和RPCT表现出心脏保护作用。但是,使用任何一种方法,RIPC和RPCT的组合均不能增强心脏保护作用。因此,对于进行大腹部手术的患者,认为不需要RIPC,而对于进行其他类型的非心脏大手术和微创介入手术的患者,RIPC可能有用。另外,栓塞性疾病患者在进行溶栓等再灌注治疗时也有IRI的风险。因此,RIPC也可能对这些患者有益。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号