Key result
Ischemic preconditioning cuts infarct size ~81% vs non-preconditioning in a rabbit model.
Why the study?
The effect of ischemic preconditioning on myocardial infarction and microvascular injury was investigated using Tc-99m Glucaric Acid and In-111 human fibrinogen imaging in ischemic myocardium.
Does ischemic preconditioning reduce myocardial infarction and microvascular injury in a rabbit model of ischemia-reperfusion?
Does ischemic preconditioning reduce myocardial infarction and microvascular injury in a rabbit model of ischemia-reperfusion?
Absolute Event Rate: 4.6% vs 24.1%
p-value: p=<0.01
Ischemic preconditioning significantly reduces both myocyte viability loss and microvascular injury in a rabbit model of ischemia-reperfusion, as demonstrated by dual-isotope imaging.
Background: Tc-99m labeled Glucaric Acid (Tc-GA) and In-111 labeled human fibrinogen (In-HF) were used to demonstrate reduction in myocardial infarction and microvascular injury in rabbit preconditioned ischemic hearts. Methods: New Zealand White rabbits were subjected to preconditioning or non-preconditioning ischemic myocardial injury. Reperfusion was established after 45 min of circumflex occlusion and then Tc-GA and In-HF were injected intravenously. Anteroposterior gamma images were acquired for 4 hours. Perfusion defects, histochemical infarct size and radiotracer uptake were determined. Results: In vivo and ex vivo images were consistent with the gamma scintillation counting data. Minimal GA and fibrin depositions were seen in preconditioned ischemic hearts (3.78± 10.7 and 0 % of total myocardial area respectively) whereas the areas delineated by GA and fibrin deposition in non-ischemic preconditioned hearts were larger (61.9± 34.5 and 60.0± 32.7%). Infarct size of preconditioned ischemic hearts was 4.6±1.9 % of the left ventricle, whereas that of non-preconditioned ischemic hearts was 24.1±5.9% (P <0.01) assessed by histochemical technique. Infarct size from imaging was approximately 2.5 times that of the histochemical assessment. The regions of perfusion defect were similar (23.3±4.1 vs 26.5+8.5% respectively). Images of Tc-GA uptake and In-HF deposition were consistent with histochemical and radiotracer uptake data indicating minimal myocardial injury in preconditioned ischemic hearts even though areas of perfusion defect were similar. Conclusion: The data indicates that ischemic precondition not only preserved myocyte viability but also reduced microvascular injury.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khaw et al. (2015) studied ischemic myocardial injury. Ischemic preconditioning vs. Non-preconditioning was evaluated on Infarct size assessed by histochemical technique (% of left ventricle) (p=<0.01). Ischemic preconditioning significantly reduced histochemical infarct size compared to non-preconditioning (4.6% vs 24.1% of the left ventricle; P<0.01) in a rabbit model of myocardial injury.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: