Why the study?
Remote ischemic preconditioning increases ribonuclease levels and cardioprotects by reducing extracellular RNA, but the influence of medication-induced preconditioning on this system relative to remote ischemic preconditioning remained unexamined.
Does remote ischemic preconditioning or medication-induced preconditioning improve cardioprotection and alter the eRNA/RNase system in male rats?
Does remote ischemic preconditioning or medication-induced preconditioning improve cardioprotection and alter the eRNA/RNase system in male rats?
While remote ischemic preconditioning has a greater effect on the eRNA/RNase system than medication-induced preconditioning, both offer similar cardioprotective hemodynamic benefits in a rat model of ischemia/reperfusion.
Background It has been demonstrated that remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) increases ribonuclease (RNase) levels and protects the heart by reducing extracellular ribonucleic acid (eRNA). As medication-induced preconditioning (MIPC) is also a powerful tool for cardioprotection, we examined the influence of both types of preconditioning on the eRNA/RNase system. Methods In 17 male rats, RIPC (3 × 5 minute hind-leg ischemia) or MIPC (isoflurane and buprenorphine anesthesia) was performed. Five rats served as control and did not undergo preconditioning (non-MIPC). After preconditioning, eRNA levels and RNase activity were determined in plasma, and the hearts were mounted on a blood-perfused Langendorff ischemia/reperfusion apparatus. Hemodynamic, metabolic, and electron microscopic parameters were determined. Furthermore, MIPC with one anesthetic drug only (isoflurane, buprenorphine, or etomidate) was induced in another five rats. After 30 minutes, eRNA levels and RNase activity were determined and compared with an RIPC group (n = 5). Results The plasma of RIPC-treated rats had higher RNase activity and lower eRNA levels than that of MIPC-treated rats. In addition, RIPC increased RNase activity more than MIPC with one drug alone. The RNase activity and eRNA levels in these MIPC groups differed considerably. Hemodynamic parameters of RIPC- and MIPC-treated hearts were better preserved after 90-minute ischemia than those of non-MIPC hearts. No obvious differences were noted between MIPC and RIPC regarding hemodynamics, metabolism, or structural parameters. Conclusions Our results suggest that RIPC does not have any additional cardioprotective benefit in this experimental system. However, the influence of RIPC on the eRNA/RNase system was greater than that of MIPC.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tolkmitt et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: