Why the study?
Does LPS administration prior to ischemia reduce myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury in rats?
Does LPS administration prior to ischemia reduce myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury in rats?
A nonlethal dose of LPS administered prior to ischemia protects the rat heart from in vivo ischemia/reperfusion injury, likely by decreasing neutrophil L-selectin expression.
LPS preconditioning shows no clinical role yet; leaves open translation of endotoxin cardioprotection to human ischemia-reperfusion injury.
We have previously shown that a nonlethal dose of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) decreases L-selectin expression of neutrophils (PMNs), thereby preventing PMN-mediated reperfusion injury in the isolated heart. In the present study we determined whether or not that dose of LPS would protect hearts during in vivo ischemia and reperfusion by preventing PMN-induced reperfusion injury. Rats receiving saline vehicle showed marked myocardial injury (necrotic area/area at risk = 82%+/-2%) and significant depression in left ventricular function as assessed in the isolated isovolumic heart preparation at constant flow rates of 5, 10, 15, and 20 ml/min. The administration of LPS (100 microg/kg body wt) 7 hr prior to ischemia resulted in a reduction in myocardial damage (necrotic area/area at risk = 42%+/-3%) and preservation of function. Myocardial function was similar to that of sham ischemic saline- and LPS-treated rats. Moreover, PMN infiltration as determined by histology was quantitatively more severe in hearts of saline-treated rats than in hearts of LPS-treated rats. Isolated hearts from vehicle- and LPS-treated animals undergoing sham ischemia in vivo recovered to the same extent after in vitro ischemia/reperfusion, suggesting that LPS did not induce protection by altering intrinsic properties of the heart. Our results indicate that LPS-induced protection of the heart from in vivo PMN-mediated ischemia/reperfusion injury may be due to decreased L-selectin expression of PMNs in LPS-treated animals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lipton et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: