Suppr超能文献

肢体远程缺血预处理对大鼠的心脏保护作用:荟萃分析与三中心体内研究之间的差异。

Cardioprotective efficacy of limb remote ischaemic preconditioning in rats: discrepancy between a meta-analysis and a three-centre in vivo study.

机构信息

Cardiovascular and Metabolic Research Group, Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Semmelweis University, Üllői út 26, 1085 Budapest, Hungary.

MTA-SE System Pharmacology Research Group, Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.

出版信息

Cardiovasc Res. 2023 Jun 13;119(6):1336-1351. doi: 10.1093/cvr/cvad024.

Abstract

AIMS

Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) is a robust cardioprotective intervention in preclinical studies. To establish a working and efficacious RIPC protocol in our laboratories, we performed randomized, blinded in vivo studies in three study centres in rats, with various RIPC protocols. To verify that our experimental settings are in good alignment with in vivo rat studies showing cardioprotection by limb RIPC, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. In addition, we investigated the importance of different study parameters.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Male Wistar rats were subjected to 20-45 min cardiac ischaemia followed by 120 min reperfusion with or without preceding RIPC by 3 or 4 × 5-5 min occlusion/reperfusion of one or two femoral vessels by clamping, tourniquet, or pressure cuff. RIPC did not reduce infarct size (IS), microvascular obstruction, or arrhythmias at any study centres. Systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on in vivo rat models of myocardial ischaemia/reperfusion injury with limb RIPC showed that RIPC reduces IS by 21.28% on average. In addition, the systematic review showed methodological heterogeneity and insufficient reporting of study parameters in a high proportion of studies.

CONCLUSION

We report for the first time the lack of cardioprotection by RIPC in rats, assessed in individually randomized, blinded in vivo studies, involving three study centres, using different RIPC protocols. These results are in discrepancy with the meta-analysis of similar in vivo rat studies; however, no specific methodological reason could be identified by the systematic review, probably due to the overall insufficient reporting of several study parameters that did not improve over the past two decades. These results urge for publication of more well-designed and well-reported studies, irrespective of the outcome, which are required for preclinical reproducibility, and the development of clinically translatable cardioprotective interventions.

摘要

目的

远程缺血预处理(RIPC)是一种在临床前研究中具有强大心脏保护作用的干预措施。为了在我们的实验室中建立一个可行且有效的 RIPC 方案,我们在三个研究中心的大鼠中进行了随机、盲法体内研究,使用了各种 RIPC 方案。为了验证我们的实验设置与显示肢体 RIPC 具有心脏保护作用的体内大鼠研究相符,我们进行了系统评价和荟萃分析。此外,我们还研究了不同研究参数的重要性。

方法和结果

雄性 Wistar 大鼠接受 20-45 分钟的心肌缺血,随后进行 120 分钟的再灌注,或在之前进行 3 或 4 次 5-5 分钟的一条或两条股血管闭塞/再灌注,通过夹闭、止血带或压力袖带进行。在任何研究中心,RIPC 均未减少梗死面积(IS)、微血管阻塞或心律失常。系统评价和荟萃分析重点关注肢体 RIPC 的体内大鼠心肌缺血/再灌注损伤模型,结果表明 RIPC 平均可使 IS 减少 21.28%。此外,系统评价还显示,在很大比例的研究中,研究参数的方法学异质性和报告不充分。

结论

我们首次报告了 RIPC 在大鼠中缺乏心脏保护作用,这是在涉及三个研究中心的单独随机、盲法体内研究中评估的,使用了不同的 RIPC 方案。这些结果与类似的体内大鼠研究的荟萃分析不一致;然而,系统评价并未确定特定的方法学原因,这可能是由于过去二十年中几个研究参数的总体报告不足,而这些参数并没有得到改善。这些结果促使无论结果如何,都需要发表更多设计良好、报告充分的研究,以实现临床前的可重复性,并开发具有临床转化潜力的心脏保护干预措施。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d8e5/10262179/f497ac79f1d5/cvad024_ga1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验