4.3 Article

Diabetic cardiomyopathy attenuated the protective effect of ischaemic post-conditioning against ischaemia-reperfusion injury in the isolated rat heart model

期刊

ARCHIVES OF PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 129, 期 3, 页码 711-722

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13813455.2020.1866017

关键词

Ischaemia-reperfusion injury; mitochondria; diabetic cardiomyopathy; ischaemic post-conditioning

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the effectiveness of post-conditioning (POC) in protecting the diabetic heart with myopathy (DCM) against I/R injury. The results indicate that POC failed to recover cardiac dysfunction in DCM, and this failure is related to mitochondrial dysfunction.
The present study was designed to investigate the efficacy of post-conditioning (POC) in the diabetic heart with myopathy (DCM) against ischaemia-reperfusion (I/R) injury in an isolated rat heart model. Present work includes three groups of male Wistar rat viz., (i) normal, (ii) diabetes mellitus (DM) and (iii) DCM and each group was subdivided into normal perfusion, I/R, and POC. Isolated heart from the rats was analysed for tissue injury, contractile function, mitochondrial function, and oxidative stress. Results demonstrated that unlike in DM heart and normal heart, POC procedure failed to recover the DCM heart from I/R induced cardiac dysfunction (measured via cardiac hemodynamics and infarct size. POC was unsuccessful in preserving mitochondrial subsarcolemmal fraction during I/R when compared with DM and normal heart. To conclude, the development of myopathy in diabetic heart abolished the cardioprotective efficacy of POC and the underlying pathology was linked with the mitochondrial dysfunction. KEY MESSAGES Early studies reported contradicting response of diabetic heart towards post-conditioning mediated cardioprotection. Deteriorated mitochondrial function underlines the failure of post-conditioning in DCM. Efficacy of cardioprotection depends on the varying pathology of different diabetes stages.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据