Yoo Seung-Hee, Cho Sooyoung, Won Yoonsun, Lee Jong Wha
Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Ewha Womans University Mokdong Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Ewha Med J. 2024 Oct;47(4):e68. doi: 10.12771/emj.2024.e68. Epub 2024 Oct 31.
Remote ischemic preconditioning (rIPC) is a novel technique in which brief episodes of ischemia and reperfusion in one organ confer protection against prolonged ischemia in a distant organ. In contrast, anesthetic-induced preconditioning (APC) utilizes volatile anesthetics to protect multiple organs from ischemia-reperfusion injury. Both methods are easily integrated into various clinical scenarios for cardioprotection. However, it remains unclear whether simultaneous application of these techniques could result in complementary, additive, synergistic, or adverse effects. An adult rabbit heart Langendorff model of global ischemia/reperfusion injury was used to compare the cardioprotective effect of rIPC and APC alone and in combination relative to untreated (control) hearts. The rIPC group underwent four cycles of 5-minute ischemia on the hind limb, each followed by 5 minutes of reperfusion. The APC group received 2.5 vol% sevoflurane for 20 minutes via a face mask, followed by a 20-minute washout period. Both rIPC, induced by four 5-minute cycles of ischemia/reperfusion on the hind limb, and APC, administered as 2.5 vol% sevoflurane via a mask, significantly reduced the size of myocardial infarction following 30 minutes of global ischemia by >50% compared to the untreated control group (rIPC, 12.1±1.7%; APC, 13.5±2.1%; P<0.01 compared to control, 31.3±3.0%). However, no additional protective effect was observed when rIPC and APC were combined (rIPC+APC, 14.4±3.3%). Although combining rIPC and APC did not provide additional protection, there was no inhibitory effect of one intervention on the other.
远程缺血预处理(rIPC)是一种新技术,即一个器官的短暂缺血和再灌注发作可对远处器官的长时间缺血起到保护作用。相比之下,麻醉诱导预处理(APC)利用挥发性麻醉剂保护多个器官免受缺血再灌注损伤。这两种方法都很容易整合到各种心脏保护的临床场景中。然而,尚不清楚同时应用这些技术是否会产生互补、相加、协同或不良影响。使用成年兔心脏全心缺血/再灌注损伤的Langendorff模型,比较单独及联合应用rIPC和APC相对于未处理(对照)心脏的心脏保护作用。rIPC组后肢经历4个5分钟的缺血周期,每个周期后接着5分钟的再灌注。APC组通过面罩接受2.5%体积分数的七氟醚20分钟,随后是20分钟的洗脱期。与未处理的对照组相比,后肢4个5分钟缺血/再灌注周期诱导的rIPC以及通过面罩给予2.5%体积分数七氟醚的APC,在全心缺血30分钟后均使心肌梗死面积显著减少>50%(rIPC组,12.1±1.7%;APC组,13.5±2.1%;与对照组31.3±3.0%相比,P<0.01)。然而,当rIPC和APC联合应用时未观察到额外的保护作用(rIPC+APC组,14.4±3.3%)。虽然联合应用rIPC和APC未提供额外保护,但一种干预对另一种干预没有抑制作用。