Cargando…

The importance of clinically relevant background therapy in cardioprotective studies

Treatment of acute myocardial infarct patients (AMI) includes rapid restoration of coronary blood flow and pharmacological therapy aimed to prevent pain and maintain vessel patency. Many interventions have been investigated to offer additional protection. One such intervention is remote ischaemic co...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: He, Zhenhe, Davidson, Sean M., Yellon, Derek M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7666584/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33188438
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00395-020-00830-y
_version_ 1783610159594995712
author He, Zhenhe
Davidson, Sean M.
Yellon, Derek M.
author_facet He, Zhenhe
Davidson, Sean M.
Yellon, Derek M.
author_sort He, Zhenhe
collection PubMed
description Treatment of acute myocardial infarct patients (AMI) includes rapid restoration of coronary blood flow and pharmacological therapy aimed to prevent pain and maintain vessel patency. Many interventions have been investigated to offer additional protection. One such intervention is remote ischaemic conditioning (RIC) involving short-episodes of ischaemia of the arm with a blood pressure cuff, followed by reperfusion to protect the heart organs from subsequent severe ischaemia. However, the recent CONDI2-ERIC-PPCI multicentre study of RIC in STEMI showed no benefit in clinical outcome in low risk patients. It could also be argued that these patients were already in a partially protected state, highlighting the disconnect between animal- and clinical-based outcome studies. To improve potential translatability, we developed an animal model using pharmacological agents similar to those given to patients presenting with an AMI, prior to PPCI. Rats underwent MI on a combined background of an opioid agonist, heparin and a platelet-inhibitor thereby allowing us to assess whether additional cardioprotective strategies had any effect over and above this “cocktail”. We demonstrated that the “background drugs” were protective in their own right, reducing MI from 57.5 ± 3.7% to 37.3 ± 2.9% (n = 11, p < 0.001). On this background of drugs, RIC did not add any further protection (38.0 ± 3.4%). However, using a caspase inhibitor, which acts via a different mechanistic pathway to RIC, we were able to demonstrate additional protection (20.6 ± 3.3%). This concept provides initial evidence to develop models which can be used to evaluate future animal-to-clinical translation in cardioprotective studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7666584
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76665842020-11-17 The importance of clinically relevant background therapy in cardioprotective studies He, Zhenhe Davidson, Sean M. Yellon, Derek M. Basic Res Cardiol Original Contribution Treatment of acute myocardial infarct patients (AMI) includes rapid restoration of coronary blood flow and pharmacological therapy aimed to prevent pain and maintain vessel patency. Many interventions have been investigated to offer additional protection. One such intervention is remote ischaemic conditioning (RIC) involving short-episodes of ischaemia of the arm with a blood pressure cuff, followed by reperfusion to protect the heart organs from subsequent severe ischaemia. However, the recent CONDI2-ERIC-PPCI multicentre study of RIC in STEMI showed no benefit in clinical outcome in low risk patients. It could also be argued that these patients were already in a partially protected state, highlighting the disconnect between animal- and clinical-based outcome studies. To improve potential translatability, we developed an animal model using pharmacological agents similar to those given to patients presenting with an AMI, prior to PPCI. Rats underwent MI on a combined background of an opioid agonist, heparin and a platelet-inhibitor thereby allowing us to assess whether additional cardioprotective strategies had any effect over and above this “cocktail”. We demonstrated that the “background drugs” were protective in their own right, reducing MI from 57.5 ± 3.7% to 37.3 ± 2.9% (n = 11, p < 0.001). On this background of drugs, RIC did not add any further protection (38.0 ± 3.4%). However, using a caspase inhibitor, which acts via a different mechanistic pathway to RIC, we were able to demonstrate additional protection (20.6 ± 3.3%). This concept provides initial evidence to develop models which can be used to evaluate future animal-to-clinical translation in cardioprotective studies. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020-11-13 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7666584/ /pubmed/33188438 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00395-020-00830-y Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Original Contribution
He, Zhenhe
Davidson, Sean M.
Yellon, Derek M.
The importance of clinically relevant background therapy in cardioprotective studies
title The importance of clinically relevant background therapy in cardioprotective studies
title_full The importance of clinically relevant background therapy in cardioprotective studies
title_fullStr The importance of clinically relevant background therapy in cardioprotective studies
title_full_unstemmed The importance of clinically relevant background therapy in cardioprotective studies
title_short The importance of clinically relevant background therapy in cardioprotective studies
title_sort importance of clinically relevant background therapy in cardioprotective studies
topic Original Contribution
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7666584/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33188438
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00395-020-00830-y
work_keys_str_mv AT hezhenhe theimportanceofclinicallyrelevantbackgroundtherapyincardioprotectivestudies
AT davidsonseanm theimportanceofclinicallyrelevantbackgroundtherapyincardioprotectivestudies
AT yellonderekm theimportanceofclinicallyrelevantbackgroundtherapyincardioprotectivestudies
AT hezhenhe importanceofclinicallyrelevantbackgroundtherapyincardioprotectivestudies
AT davidsonseanm importanceofclinicallyrelevantbackgroundtherapyincardioprotectivestudies
AT yellonderekm importanceofclinicallyrelevantbackgroundtherapyincardioprotectivestudies