Why the study?
Does recanalization after occlusion reduce myocardial infarct size compared to permanent occlusion in pig, dog, and human hearts?
Does recanalization after occlusion reduce myocardial infarct size compared to permanent occlusion in pig, dog, and human hearts?
Recanalization must occur within 1 hour in hearts without collateral circulation and within 4 hours in hearts with collateral circulation to conclusively reduce infarct size, with no evidence of reperfusion injury expanding infarct size.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Challenges reperfusion injury concept in animal models; leaves open human recanalization timing windows.
To define whether recanalization after occlusion can reduce the myocardial infarct size, we compared the infarct size in 25 pig hearts without collateral circulation, 35 dog hearts with collateral circulation and 11 human autopsied hearts with coronary thrombolysis at 2 to 6 hours after the onset of acute myocardial infarction. The data showed that % infarct size in the risk area increased according to the duration of occlusion. In the pig, % infarct size was 80 +/- 9% in the recanalization after 1 hour occlusion and 96 +/- 2% in the recanalization after 2 hour occlusion. There was no significant difference between these and the permanent occlusion group (95 +/- 3%). In the dog, % infarct size was 35 +/- 31% in the recanalization after 4 hour occlusion and 59 +/- 27% in the permanent occlusion group. In human autopsied hearts, the infarct size was the same between the recanalization group (82 +/- 6%) and the permanent occlusion group (80 +/- 11%). The % infarct size in the recanalization groups was less than or the same as that in the hearts with permanent occlusion in dog, pig and human. Thus, it is concluded that, to reduce conclusively the infarct size, recanalization should be done within 1 hour after the occlusion in the hearts without collateral circulation and within 4 hours in the hearts with collateral circulation. So called reperfusion injury which means the greater expansion of the % infarct size than that in the permanent occlusion is not present.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fujiwara et al. (1989) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: