4.0 Article

Sex is no determinant of cardioprotection by ischemic preconditioning in rats, but ischemic/reperfused tissue mass is for remote ischemic preconditioning

Journal

PHYSIOLOGICAL REPORTS
Volume 7, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.14814/phy2.14146

Keywords

A cute myocardial infarction; cardioprotection; ischemia-reperfusion injury; remote ischemic conditioning

Categories

Funding

  1. German Research Foundation [SFB 1116 B08]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We determined the impact of sex on the magnitude of cardioprotection by local and remote ischemic preconditioning (IPC and RIPC) and of ischemic/reperfused peripheral tissue mass on protection by RIPC. Hearts of female and male Lewis rats were excised, perfused with buffer, and underwent either IPC by 3 x 5/5 min global zero-flow ischemia/reperfusion (GI/R) or time-matched perfusion (TP) before 30/120 min GI/R. In a second approach, anesthetized female and male Lewis rats underwent RIPC, 3 x 5/5 min ischemia/reperfusion of one or both hindlimbs (1-RIPC or 2-RIPC), or placebo. Thirty minutes after the RIPC/placebo protocol, hearts were excised and subjected to GI/R. In female and male hearts, infarct size was less with IPC than with TP before GI/R (IPC+GI/R-female: 12 +/- 5%; IPC+GI/R-male: 12 +/- 7% vs. TP+GI/R-female: 33 +/- 5%; TP+GI/R-male: 37 +/- 7%, P < 0.001). With 2-RIPC, infarct size was less than with 1-RIPC in female and male rat hearts, respectively (2-RIPC+GI/R-female: 15 +/- 5% vs. 1-RIPC+GI/R-female: 22 +/- 7%, P = 0.026 and 2-RIPC+GI/R-male: 16 +/- 5% vs. 1-RIPC+GI/R-male: 22 +/- 8%, P = 0.016). Infarct size after the placebo protocol and GI/R was not different between female and male hearts (36 +/- 8% vs. 34 +/- 5%). Sex is no determinant of IPC- and RIPC-induced cardioprotection in isolated Lewis rat hearts. RIPC-induced cardioprotection is greater with greater mass of ischemic/reperfused peripheral tissue.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available