Key result
Pharmacological lysis of coronary thrombi and reperfusion in a systemic lytic state impaired functional recovery and caused reperfusion injury, whereas direct mechanical recanalization did not.
Why the study?
Does the method of coronary occlusion and mode of recanalization influence the response of the heart to reperfusion in open-chest dogs?
Does the method of coronary occlusion and mode of recanalization influence the response of the heart to reperfusion in open-chest dogs?
Induction of a systemic lytic state, along with products from intracoronary thrombus lysis, creates an injurious milieu that adversely affects reperfused myocardium compared to mechanical recanalization alone.
Favors mechanical over pharmacological recanalization to limit injury in models; leaves open translation to human reperfusion.
BACKGROUND: The beneficial effects of flow restoration and the deleterious impact of reperfusion injury on ischemic myocardium are well known. However, most experimental studies have induced reperfusion by mechanical release of nonthrombotic occlusions, only occasionally in the presence of a systemic lytic state. Conditions differ markedly in patients undergoing pharmacological or mechanical recanalization of thrombotically occluded coronary arteries. Accordingly, this study was designed to determine whether the method of coronary occlusion and mode of recanalization influence the response of the heart to reperfusion. METHODS AND RESULTS: The acute effects of reperfusion on right ventricular (RV) function and histology were studied in open-chest dogs subjected to right coronary artery (RCA) balloon occlusion and deflation alone (group 1), pharmacological lysis of thrombotic occlusions (group 2), balloon occlusion with reperfusion induced by balloon deflation in the presence of a systemic lytic state (group 3), and recanalization of thrombotically occluded vessels by direct angioplasty (group 4). In all groups, 1 hour of RCA occlusion led to RV free wall (FW) dyskinesis. In group 1, reperfusion promptly improved RVFW function, with normal RVFW thickness and only minimal edema by microscopy. In contrast, in group 2, clot lysis led to acute RVFW swelling and impaired recovery of RVFW contraction associated with striking interstitial edema, contraction band necrosis, and hemorrhage by microscopy. In group 3, balloon deflation in the presence of a lytic state led to a similar but less severe pattern of abrupt RVFW swelling and impaired recovery of RVFW function but lesser histological alterations than in group 2. However, mechanical recanalization of thrombotically occluded vessels (group 4) led to prompt recovery of RVFW function without significant RVFW swelling or histological abnormalities. CONCLUSIONS: Our observations indicate that the responses of ischemic myocardium to reperfusion are influenced by factors beyond those effects attributable to ischemia and reperfusion per se. Pharmacological lysis of coronary thrombi results in alterations characteristic of reperfusion injury and associated with impaired functional recovery. Such changes are also evident, although to a lesser extent, when reperfusion of northrombotic occlusions is induced by mechanical recanalization in the presence of a systemic lytic state but not in its absence. However, such effects were not seen with direct mechanical recanalization of thrombotically occluded vessels. In aggregate, these findings indicate that induction of a systemic lytic state, together with products released by lysis of intracoronary thrombi, generates an inurious milieu that exerts adverse effects on reperfused myocardium.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ohnishi et al. (1995) studied Ischemic myocardium and reperfusion injury. Pharmacological lysis of thrombotic occlusions or reperfusion in a systemic lytic state vs. Mechanical recanalization or balloon deflation alone was evaluated on Acute effects of reperfusion on right ventricular (RV) function and histology. Pharmacological lysis of coronary thrombi and reperfusion in a systemic lytic state impaired functional recovery and caused reperfusion injury, whereas direct mechanical recanalization did not.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: