Cargando…

Cardioprotective efficacy of limb remote ischaemic preconditioning in rats: discrepancy between a meta-analysis and a three-centre in vivo study

AIMS: Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) is a robust cardioprotective intervention in preclinical studies. To establish a working and efficacious RIPC protocol in our laboratories, we performed randomized, blinded in vivo studies in three study centres in rats, with various RIPC protocols. To v...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sayour, Nabil V, Brenner, Gábor B, Makkos, András, Kiss, Bernadett, Kovácsházi, Csenger, Gergely, Tamás G, Aukrust, Sverre Groever, Tian, Huimin, Zenkl, Viktória, Gömöri, Kamilla, Szabados, Tamara, Bencsik, Péter, Heinen, Andre, Schulz, Rainer, Baxter, Gary F, Zuurbier, Coert J, Vokó, Zoltán, Ferdinandy, Péter, Giricz, Zoltán
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10262179/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36718529
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cvr/cvad024
_version_ 1785058017588281344
author Sayour, Nabil V
Brenner, Gábor B
Makkos, András
Kiss, Bernadett
Kovácsházi, Csenger
Gergely, Tamás G
Aukrust, Sverre Groever
Tian, Huimin
Zenkl, Viktória
Gömöri, Kamilla
Szabados, Tamara
Bencsik, Péter
Heinen, Andre
Schulz, Rainer
Baxter, Gary F
Zuurbier, Coert J
Vokó, Zoltán
Ferdinandy, Péter
Giricz, Zoltán
author_facet Sayour, Nabil V
Brenner, Gábor B
Makkos, András
Kiss, Bernadett
Kovácsházi, Csenger
Gergely, Tamás G
Aukrust, Sverre Groever
Tian, Huimin
Zenkl, Viktória
Gömöri, Kamilla
Szabados, Tamara
Bencsik, Péter
Heinen, Andre
Schulz, Rainer
Baxter, Gary F
Zuurbier, Coert J
Vokó, Zoltán
Ferdinandy, Péter
Giricz, Zoltán
author_sort Sayour, Nabil V
collection PubMed
description AIMS: Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) is a robust cardioprotective intervention in preclinical studies. To establish a working and efficacious RIPC protocol in our laboratories, we performed randomized, blinded in vivo studies in three study centres in rats, with various RIPC protocols. To verify that our experimental settings are in good alignment with in vivo rat studies showing cardioprotection by limb RIPC, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. In addition, we investigated the importance of different study parameters. METHODS AND RESULTS: Male Wistar rats were subjected to 20–45 min cardiac ischaemia followed by 120 min reperfusion with or without preceding RIPC by 3 or 4 × 5−5 min occlusion/reperfusion of one or two femoral vessels by clamping, tourniquet, or pressure cuff. RIPC did not reduce infarct size (IS), microvascular obstruction, or arrhythmias at any study centres. Systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on in vivo rat models of myocardial ischaemia/reperfusion injury with limb RIPC showed that RIPC reduces IS by 21.28% on average. In addition, the systematic review showed methodological heterogeneity and insufficient reporting of study parameters in a high proportion of studies. CONCLUSION: We report for the first time the lack of cardioprotection by RIPC in rats, assessed in individually randomized, blinded in vivo studies, involving three study centres, using different RIPC protocols. These results are in discrepancy with the meta-analysis of similar in vivo rat studies; however, no specific methodological reason could be identified by the systematic review, probably due to the overall insufficient reporting of several study parameters that did not improve over the past two decades. These results urge for publication of more well-designed and well-reported studies, irrespective of the outcome, which are required for preclinical reproducibility, and the development of clinically translatable cardioprotective interventions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10262179
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102621792023-06-15 Cardioprotective efficacy of limb remote ischaemic preconditioning in rats: discrepancy between a meta-analysis and a three-centre in vivo study Sayour, Nabil V Brenner, Gábor B Makkos, András Kiss, Bernadett Kovácsházi, Csenger Gergely, Tamás G Aukrust, Sverre Groever Tian, Huimin Zenkl, Viktória Gömöri, Kamilla Szabados, Tamara Bencsik, Péter Heinen, Andre Schulz, Rainer Baxter, Gary F Zuurbier, Coert J Vokó, Zoltán Ferdinandy, Péter Giricz, Zoltán Cardiovasc Res Original Article AIMS: Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) is a robust cardioprotective intervention in preclinical studies. To establish a working and efficacious RIPC protocol in our laboratories, we performed randomized, blinded in vivo studies in three study centres in rats, with various RIPC protocols. To verify that our experimental settings are in good alignment with in vivo rat studies showing cardioprotection by limb RIPC, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. In addition, we investigated the importance of different study parameters. METHODS AND RESULTS: Male Wistar rats were subjected to 20–45 min cardiac ischaemia followed by 120 min reperfusion with or without preceding RIPC by 3 or 4 × 5−5 min occlusion/reperfusion of one or two femoral vessels by clamping, tourniquet, or pressure cuff. RIPC did not reduce infarct size (IS), microvascular obstruction, or arrhythmias at any study centres. Systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on in vivo rat models of myocardial ischaemia/reperfusion injury with limb RIPC showed that RIPC reduces IS by 21.28% on average. In addition, the systematic review showed methodological heterogeneity and insufficient reporting of study parameters in a high proportion of studies. CONCLUSION: We report for the first time the lack of cardioprotection by RIPC in rats, assessed in individually randomized, blinded in vivo studies, involving three study centres, using different RIPC protocols. These results are in discrepancy with the meta-analysis of similar in vivo rat studies; however, no specific methodological reason could be identified by the systematic review, probably due to the overall insufficient reporting of several study parameters that did not improve over the past two decades. These results urge for publication of more well-designed and well-reported studies, irrespective of the outcome, which are required for preclinical reproducibility, and the development of clinically translatable cardioprotective interventions. Oxford University Press 2023-01-31 /pmc/articles/PMC10262179/ /pubmed/36718529 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cvr/cvad024 Text en © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Original Article
Sayour, Nabil V
Brenner, Gábor B
Makkos, András
Kiss, Bernadett
Kovácsházi, Csenger
Gergely, Tamás G
Aukrust, Sverre Groever
Tian, Huimin
Zenkl, Viktória
Gömöri, Kamilla
Szabados, Tamara
Bencsik, Péter
Heinen, Andre
Schulz, Rainer
Baxter, Gary F
Zuurbier, Coert J
Vokó, Zoltán
Ferdinandy, Péter
Giricz, Zoltán
Cardioprotective efficacy of limb remote ischaemic preconditioning in rats: discrepancy between a meta-analysis and a three-centre in vivo study
title Cardioprotective efficacy of limb remote ischaemic preconditioning in rats: discrepancy between a meta-analysis and a three-centre in vivo study
title_full Cardioprotective efficacy of limb remote ischaemic preconditioning in rats: discrepancy between a meta-analysis and a three-centre in vivo study
title_fullStr Cardioprotective efficacy of limb remote ischaemic preconditioning in rats: discrepancy between a meta-analysis and a three-centre in vivo study
title_full_unstemmed Cardioprotective efficacy of limb remote ischaemic preconditioning in rats: discrepancy between a meta-analysis and a three-centre in vivo study
title_short Cardioprotective efficacy of limb remote ischaemic preconditioning in rats: discrepancy between a meta-analysis and a three-centre in vivo study
title_sort cardioprotective efficacy of limb remote ischaemic preconditioning in rats: discrepancy between a meta-analysis and a three-centre in vivo study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10262179/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36718529
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cvr/cvad024
work_keys_str_mv AT sayournabilv cardioprotectiveefficacyoflimbremoteischaemicpreconditioninginratsdiscrepancybetweenametaanalysisandathreecentreinvivostudy
AT brennergaborb cardioprotectiveefficacyoflimbremoteischaemicpreconditioninginratsdiscrepancybetweenametaanalysisandathreecentreinvivostudy
AT makkosandras cardioprotectiveefficacyoflimbremoteischaemicpreconditioninginratsdiscrepancybetweenametaanalysisandathreecentreinvivostudy
AT kissbernadett cardioprotectiveefficacyoflimbremoteischaemicpreconditioninginratsdiscrepancybetweenametaanalysisandathreecentreinvivostudy
AT kovacshazicsenger cardioprotectiveefficacyoflimbremoteischaemicpreconditioninginratsdiscrepancybetweenametaanalysisandathreecentreinvivostudy
AT gergelytamasg cardioprotectiveefficacyoflimbremoteischaemicpreconditioninginratsdiscrepancybetweenametaanalysisandathreecentreinvivostudy
AT aukrustsverregroever cardioprotectiveefficacyoflimbremoteischaemicpreconditioninginratsdiscrepancybetweenametaanalysisandathreecentreinvivostudy
AT tianhuimin cardioprotectiveefficacyoflimbremoteischaemicpreconditioninginratsdiscrepancybetweenametaanalysisandathreecentreinvivostudy
AT zenklviktoria cardioprotectiveefficacyoflimbremoteischaemicpreconditioninginratsdiscrepancybetweenametaanalysisandathreecentreinvivostudy
AT gomorikamilla cardioprotectiveefficacyoflimbremoteischaemicpreconditioninginratsdiscrepancybetweenametaanalysisandathreecentreinvivostudy
AT szabadostamara cardioprotectiveefficacyoflimbremoteischaemicpreconditioninginratsdiscrepancybetweenametaanalysisandathreecentreinvivostudy
AT bencsikpeter cardioprotectiveefficacyoflimbremoteischaemicpreconditioninginratsdiscrepancybetweenametaanalysisandathreecentreinvivostudy
AT heinenandre cardioprotectiveefficacyoflimbremoteischaemicpreconditioninginratsdiscrepancybetweenametaanalysisandathreecentreinvivostudy
AT schulzrainer cardioprotectiveefficacyoflimbremoteischaemicpreconditioninginratsdiscrepancybetweenametaanalysisandathreecentreinvivostudy
AT baxtergaryf cardioprotectiveefficacyoflimbremoteischaemicpreconditioninginratsdiscrepancybetweenametaanalysisandathreecentreinvivostudy
AT zuurbiercoertj cardioprotectiveefficacyoflimbremoteischaemicpreconditioninginratsdiscrepancybetweenametaanalysisandathreecentreinvivostudy
AT vokozoltan cardioprotectiveefficacyoflimbremoteischaemicpreconditioninginratsdiscrepancybetweenametaanalysisandathreecentreinvivostudy
AT ferdinandypeter cardioprotectiveefficacyoflimbremoteischaemicpreconditioninginratsdiscrepancybetweenametaanalysisandathreecentreinvivostudy
AT giriczzoltan cardioprotectiveefficacyoflimbremoteischaemicpreconditioninginratsdiscrepancybetweenametaanalysisandathreecentreinvivostudy