Why the study?
Does streptokinase reduce myocardial creatine kinase depletion and limit infarct size in a rabbit model of ischemia and reperfusion?
Does streptokinase reduce myocardial creatine kinase depletion and limit infarct size in a rabbit model of ischemia and reperfusion?
In a rabbit ischemia-reperfusion model, early intravenous streptokinase transiently reduces myocardial creatine kinase depletion but fails to provide sustained limitation of infarct size at 24 hours.
Transient early CK sparing in rabbits does not extend to sustained infarct limitation; leaves open timing effects on durable myocardial salvage.
The efficacy of streptokinase as an intracoronary thrombolytic agent is well-recognized. The effect of streptokinase, distinct from its thrombolytic action, on ischaemic myocardium distal to an area of coronary artery occlusion when reperfusion occurs has not been well-defined. In order to do this, myocardial creatine kinase depletion and the histopathology of infarctions produced in rabbits after 1 h of circumflex coronary artery occlusion and mechanical release of the occlusion were assessed. Streptokinase or saline was infused intravenously for 1 h beginning 0.5 h after occlusion. Rabbits were divided into two time intervals: early (less than 10 h) and late (24 h) after release of coronary artery occlusion. When streptokinase was infused in early infarctions, haemorrhage did not correlate with infarction cross-sectional area or myocardial creatine kinase depletion. However, myocardial creatine kinase depletion was 40% less when streptokinase was infused than when saline was infused, suggesting that streptokinase might limit infarct size. In late infarctions, the degree of haemorrhage, infarction cross-sectional area, and myocardial creatine kinase depletion were similar after reperfusion with streptokinase or saline. By 24 h, the beneficial effect of a single dose of streptokinase given early in the course of occlusion-reperfusion myocardial injury was no longer evident in limiting infarct size.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mickelson et al. (1986) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: