Comparison of ischaemic preconditioning in blood perfused and buffer perfused isolated heart models.
Comparison of ischaemic preconditioning in blood perfused and buffer perfused isolated heart models.
复制标题
血液灌注和缓冲液灌注离体心脏模型缺血预处理的比较。
作者：
R. Sandhu;R. J. Diaz;G. Wilson
目的
目的是比较缺血预处理在缓冲液灌注和异种血液灌注Langendorff兔心脏模型中的作用。
方法
用Krebs-Henseleit缓冲液或来自支持兔的血液灌注离体心脏。心脏进行初始30分钟的稳定期，然后进行30分钟的全身缺血和60分钟的再灌注。缺血预处理（IP）的心脏也进行了一个周期的5分钟的全面缺血和10分钟的再灌注前30分钟的缺血。对于每个实验，测量左心室功能和坏死。
结果
通过四唑染色测量的坏死并表示为左心室面积的百分比，在缓冲液灌注对照组[42.5%（SEM 6.9），n = 7]和缓冲液灌注IP组[22.2%（5.4），n = 7，p < 0.01]之间存在显著差异。在血液灌注实验中，IP组的坏死[9.3%（3.1），n = 9]也少于对照组[22.9%（4.2），n = 9，p < 0.01]。缺血预处理产生的坏死百分比减少在缓冲液灌注和血液灌注模型之间没有显著差异。在60 min再灌注期间的任何时间，两种模型中对照和IP心脏之间的左心室收缩压峰值均无差异。在缓冲液灌注的心脏中，IP组和对照组之间在再灌注60分钟时的左心室舒张末期压没有显著差异，分别为34.3（5.5）mm Hg和37.8（4.9）mm Hg。同样，此时血液灌注组的左心室舒张末期压无统计学显著差异：IP组为13.3（2.8），对照组为24.0（6.5）。
结论
在整体缺血和再灌注的离体心脏模型中，同时评估功能恢复和坏死，缺血预处理在减少血液灌注和缓冲液灌注模型中的坏死方面非常有效。然而，缺血预处理并没有显着改善缺血后恢复功能的两种制剂。
OBJECTIVE
The aim was to compare the effects of ischaemic preconditioning in the buffer perfused and parabiotic blood perfused Langendorff rabbit heart models.
METHODS
Isolated hearts were perfused with either Krebs-Henseleit buffer solution or blood from a support rabbit. Hearts were subjected to an initial 30 min stabilisation period followed by 30 min of global ischaemia and 60 min of reperfusion. Ischaemic preconditioned (IP) hearts were also subjected to one cycle of 5 min global ischaemia and 10 min of reperfusion before the 30 min ischaemia. For each experiment, left ventricular function and necrosis were measured.
RESULTS
Necrosis, as measured by tetrazolium staining and expressed as a percentage of the left ventricular area, was significantly different between the buffer perfused control [42.5% (SEM 6.9), n = 7] and buffer perfused IP group [22.2% (5.4), n = 7, p < 0.01]. In the blood perfused experiments, the IP group also had less necrosis [9.3% (3.1), n = 9] as compared to controls [22.9%(4.2), n = 9, p < 0.01]. The percentage reduction in necrosis produced by ischaemic preconditioning was not significantly different between the buffer perfused and blood perfused models. Peak left ventricular systolic pressure was not different between the control and IP hearts in either model at any time during the 60 min reperfusion period. In buffer perfused hearts, left ventricular end diastolic pressure at 60 min reperfusion was not significantly different between the IP and the control groups, at 34.3(5.5) mm Hg v 37.8(4.9) mm Hg, respectively. Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in left ventricular end diastolic pressure in the blood perfused groups at this time: 13.3(2.8) in the IP group v 24.0(6.5) in controls.
CONCLUSIONS
In isolated heart models of global ischaemia and reperfusion, in which both recovery of function and necrosis were assessed together, ischaemic preconditioning was highly effective in reducing necrosis in both blood perfused and buffer perfused models. However, ischaemic preconditioning did not significantly improve postischaemic recovery of function in either of the two preparations.