Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Department of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Exp Physiol. 2023 May;108(5):762-771. doi: 10.1113/EP090919. Epub 2023 Mar 9.
What is the central question of this study? Invasive cardiovascular instrumentation can occur through closed- or open-chest approaches. To what extent will sternotomy and pericardiotomy affect cardiopulmonary variables? What is the main finding and its importance? Opening of the thorax decreased mean systemic and pulmonary pressures. Left ventricular function improved, but no changes were observed in right ventricular systolic measures. No consensus or recommendation exists regarding instrumentation. Methodological differences risk compromising rigour and reproducibility in preclinical research.
Animal models of cardiovascular disease are often evaluated by invasive instrumentation for phenotyping. As no consensus exists, both open- and closed-chest approaches are used, which might compromise rigour and reproducibility in preclinical research. We aimed to quantify the cardiopulmonary changes induced by sternotomy and pericardiotomy in a large animal model. Seven pigs were anaesthetized, mechanically ventilated and evaluated by right heart catheterization and bi-ventricular pressure-volume loop recordings at baseline and after sternotomy and pericardiotomy. Data were compared by ANOVA or the Friedmann test where appropriate, with post-hoc analyses to control for multiple comparisons. Sternotomy and pericardiotomy caused reductions in mean systemic (-12 ± 11 mmHg, P = 0.027) and pulmonary pressures (-4 ± 3 mmHg, P = 0.006) and airway pressures. Cardiac output decreased non-significantly (-1329 ± 1762 ml/min, P = 0.052). Left ventricular afterload decreased, with an increase in ejection fraction (+9 ± 7%, P = 0.027) and coupling. No changes were observed in right ventricular systolic function or arterial blood gases. In conclusion, open- versus closed-chest approaches to invasive cardiovascular phenotyping cause a systematic difference in key haemodynamic variables. Researchers should adopt the most appropriate approach to ensure rigour and reproducibility in preclinical cardiovascular research.
本研究的核心问题是什么?心血管介入治疗可通过闭式或开胸途径进行。正中开胸和心包切开术在多大程度上影响心肺变量?主要发现及其重要性是什么?开胸降低了平均体循环和肺循环压力。左心室功能改善,但右心室收缩指标无变化。对于仪器设备,目前尚无共识或推荐意见。方法学差异可能会影响临床前研究的严谨性和可重复性。
心血管疾病的动物模型通常通过侵入性仪器进行表型评估。由于目前尚无共识,因此同时使用开胸和闭式方法,这可能会影响临床前研究的严谨性和可重复性。我们旨在量化胸骨切开术和心包切开术对大型动物模型心肺功能的影响。七头猪接受麻醉、机械通气,并在基线和胸骨切开术及心包切开术后进行右心导管检查和双心室压力-容积环记录。数据通过方差分析或弗里德曼检验进行比较,必要时进行事后分析以控制多重比较。胸骨切开术和心包切开术导致平均体循环(-12±11mmHg,P=0.027)和肺循环(-4±3mmHg,P=0.006)及气道压力降低。心输出量降低但无统计学意义(-1329±1762ml/min,P=0.052)。左心室后负荷降低,射血分数增加(+9±7%,P=0.027),耦合增加。右心室收缩功能或动脉血气无变化。总之,开胸与闭式方法进行心血管介入表型评估会导致关键血流动力学变量的系统差异。研究人员应采用最合适的方法,以确保临床前心血管研究的严谨性和可重复性。