Key result
Repetitive coronary stenosis in pigs reduced infarct size to 6% compared to 16% with second-window ischemic preconditioning and 42% in shams (P<0.05), via distinct molecular mechanisms.
Why the study?
Does repetitive coronary stenosis induce ischemic preconditioning through different molecular mechanisms compared to traditional second-window ischemic preconditioning in conscious pigs?
Population
Chronically instrumented conscious pigs
Comparison
Repetitive coronary stenosis (RCS) vs Traditional protocol of second-window ischemic…
Design
Preclinical
Authors
Loading...
Supports distinct molecular pathways in repetitive vs classic preconditioning; hypothesis-generating and requires clinical validation before practice change.
Does repetitive coronary stenosis induce ischemic preconditioning through different molecular mechanisms compared to traditional second-window ischemic preconditioning in conscious pigs?
Absolute Event Rate: 6% vs 16%
p-value: p=<0.05
Repetitive coronary stenosis induces powerful cardioprotection against lethal ischemia through radically different molecular mechanisms (including autophagy and ER stress) compared to traditional ischemic preconditioning.
Shen et al. (2008) studied Myocardial ischemia. Repetitive coronary stenosis (RCS) vs. Second-window ischemic preconditioning (SWIPC) and shams was evaluated on Infarct size/area at risk (p=<0.05). Repetitive coronary stenosis in pigs reduced infarct size to 6% compared to 16% with second-window ischemic preconditioning and 42% in shams (P<0.05), via distinct molecular mechanisms.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: