Why the study?
Does postconditioning pacing or coronary occlusion reduce infarct size in nitrate-tolerant male rabbits?
Does postconditioning pacing or coronary occlusion reduce infarct size in nitrate-tolerant male rabbits?
Nitrate tolerance abolishes the cardioprotective effects of ischemic and pacing postconditioning in a rabbit model of myocardial ischemia-reperfusion.
Nitrate tolerance may abolish postconditioning benefits in ischemia-reperfusion; leaves open translation to human reperfusion strategies.
Methods Male rabbits made tolerant to the hypotensive response to 30 μg/kg intravenous nitroglycerin (NG) by a preceding one-week exposure to transdermal NG (0.07 mg/kg/h) were subjected to 35 min coronary occlusion (test ischemia) followed by 3 h of reperfusion with the following additional interventions: no intervention (NI); postconditioning pacing (PPC): five cycles of 5 min periods of rapid ventricular pacing (500 b.p.m.), or postconditioning coronary occlusion (PCO): five cycles of 5 min coronary occlusion with 10 min interpacing/interocclusion intervals, applied after the end of the test ischemia. These protocols were applied in both nitrate-tolerant and nontolerant animals. Infarct size expressed as a percentage of area at risk (I/R) was determined by triphenyltetrazolium chloride staining, left ventricular cyclic nucleotides were determined by radioimmunoassay from samples out of the area at risk, 75 min after the test ischemia. Results In non-tolerant animals both PPC and PCO reduced the I/R compared to the NI group. When animals had been made nitrate-tolerant, the I/R was significantly higher in the NI group compared with non-tolerant animals and the beneficial effect of the PPC or PCO on the I/R disappeared.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Szilvássy et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: