Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Department of Anesthesiology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Duesseldorf, Heinrich-Heine-University Duesseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225 Duesseldorf, Germany.
Published: August 2021
AI Article Synopsis
Article Abstract
Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) protects hearts from ischemia-reperfusion (I/R) injury in experimental studies; however, clinical RIPC trials were unsatisfactory. This discrepancy could be caused by a loss of cardioprotection due to comorbidities in patients, including diabetes mellitus (DM) and hyperglycemia (HG). RIPC is discussed to confer protective properties by release of different humoral factors activating cardioprotective signaling cascades. Therefore, we investigated whether DM type 1 and/or HG (1) inhibit the release of humoral factors after RIPC and/or (2) block the cardioprotective effect directly at the myocardium. Experiments were performed on male Wistar rats. Animals in part 1 of the study were either healthy normoglycemic (NG), type 1 diabetic (DM1), or hyperglycemic (HG). RIPC was implemented by four cycles of 5 min bilateral hind-limb ischemia/reperfusion. Control (Con) animals were not treated. Blood plasma taken in vivo was further investigated in isolated rat hearts in vitro. Plasma from diseased animals (DM1 or HG) was administered onto healthy (NG) hearts for 10 min before 33 min of global ischemia and 60 min of reperfusion. Part 2 of the study was performed vice versa-plasma taken in vivo, with or without RIPC, from healthy rats was transferred to DM1 and HG hearts in vitro. Infarct size was determined by TTC staining. Part 1: RIPC plasma from NG (NG Con: 49 ± 8% vs. NG RIPC 29 ± 6%; < 0.05) and DM1 animals (DM1 Con: 47 ± 7% vs. DM1 RIPC: 38 ± 7%; < 0.05) reduced infarct size. Interestingly, transfer of HG plasma showed comparable infarct sizes independent of prior treatment (HG Con: 34 ± 9% vs. HG RIPC 35 ± 9%; ns). Part 2: No infarct size reduction was detectable when transferring RIPC plasma from healthy rats to DM1 (DM1 Con: 54 ± 13% vs. DM1 RIPC 53 ± 10%; ns) or HG hearts (HG Con: 60 ± 16% vs. HG RIPC 53 ± 14%; ns). These results suggest that: (1) RIPC under NG and DM1 induces the release of humoral factors with cardioprotective impact, (2) HG plasma might own cardioprotective properties, and (3) RIPC does not confer cardioprotection in DM1 and HG myocardium.
