We tested the hypothesis that ischemic preconditioning (PC) of skeletal muscle provided tolerance to a subsequent ischemic event 24 h later, and that such protection was due to nitric oxide (NO). Male Wistar rats, anesthetized with halothane, were randomly assigned to groups: ischemic (no PC; n = 11), PC (n = 11), PC + N-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester (L-NAME; 100 micromol/l; n = 5), PC + N-nitro-D-arginine methyl ester (100 micromol/l; n= 4), PC + aminoguanidine (AMG; 100 micromol/l; n = 4), ischemic + L-NAME (n= 4), or ischemic + AMG (n = 4). PC consisted of 5x 10 min of ischemia and reperfusion, and, 24 h later, 2 h of ischemia were induced by a tourniquet applied to the limb. With the use of intravital microscopy, the number of perfused capillaries (Npc) in the extensor digitorum longus (EDL) muscle was measured over a 90-min reperfusion period. The ratio of ethidium bromide- to bisbenzimide-labeled nuclei was used to estimate tissue injury. PC preserved Npc (23.6 +/- 2.5) following 2 h of ischemia compared with sham muscles (11.5 +/- 5.1), significantly elevating inducible NO synthase (iNOS) activity (81% increase), but did not afford protection to the parenchyma. L-NAME and AMG prevented ischemia-reperfusion-induced reduction in Npc in muscles without PC. However, after 90 min of reperfusion, L-NAME (Npc = 15.0 +/- 1.7), but not AMG (Npc = 22.8 +/- 3.1), significantly reduced the microvascular protection afforded by PC. We conclude that PC of the EDL muscle resulted, 24 h later, in protection to microvascular perfusion only, and that such protection was due to NO from sources other than iNOS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pudupakkam et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: