HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 294/1/H421    most recent 00962.2007v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hale, S. L. Articles by Kloner, R. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hale, S. L. Articles by Kloner, R. A.

Postconditioning fails to improve no reflow or alter infarct size in an open-chest rabbit model of myocardial ischemia-reperfusion

Heart Institute, Good Samaritan Hospital, and Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California

Submitted 20 August 2007 ; accepted in final form 8 November 2007

Postconditioning (PoC) with brief intermittent ischemia after myocardial reperfusion has been shown to lessen some elements of postischemic injury including arrhythmias and, in some studies, the size of myocardial infarction. We hypothesized that PoC could improve reflow to the risk zone after reperfusion. Anesthetized, open-chest rabbits were subjected to 30 min of coronary artery occlusion followed by 3 h of reperfusion. In protocol 1, rabbits were randomly assigned to the control group (n = 10, no further intervention after reperfusion) or to the PoC group, which consisted of four cycles of 30-s reocclusions with 30 s of reperfusion in between starting at 30 s after the initial reperfusion (4 x 30/30, n = 10). In protocol 2, rabbits were assigned to the control group (n = 7) or the PoC group, which received PoC consisting of four cycles of 60-s intervals of ischemia and reperfusion starting at 30 s after the initial reperfusion (4 x 60/60, n = 7). No reflow was determined by injecting thioflavine S (a fluorescent marker of capillary perfusion), risk zone by blue dye, and infarct size by triphenyltetrazolium chloride. In protocol 1, there were no statistical differences in hemodynamics, ischemic risk zone, or infarct size (35 ± 6% of the risk zone in the PoC group vs. 29 ± 4% in the control group, P = 0.38) between the groups. Similarly, in protocol 2, PoC failed to reduce infarct size compared with the control group (45 ± 4% of the risk zone in the PoC group vs. 42 ± 6% in the control group, P = 0.75). There was a strong correlation in both protocols between the size of the necrotic zone and the portion of the necrotic zone that contained an area of no reflow. However, PoC did not affect this relationship. PoC did not reduce infarct size in this model, nor did it reduce the extent of the anatomic zone of no reflow, suggesting that this intervention may not impact postreperfusion microvascular damage due to ischemia.

microvascular reperfusion injury