4.2 Article

Ischemic preconditioning attenuates the lipid peroxidation and remote lung injury in the rat model of unilateral lower limb ischemia reperfusion

期刊

ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
卷 50, 期 2, 页码 150-155

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2006.00938.x

关键词

activated leukocytes; lipid peroxidation; ischemia; ischemic preconditioning; myeloperoxidase; reperfusion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ischemia and reperfusion of the skeletal muscle tissue may cause remote lung injury. We aimed to evaluate the protective effect of ischemic preconditioning (IP) on the lung during unilateral lower limb ischemia reperfusion (IR). Four groups of rats were used in this study: (i) the sham group (sham, n = 6) served as time controls, they remained anesthetized for the whole duration of the study; (ii) the ischemia and reperfusion group (IR, n = 10) underwent 4 h of left lower limb ischemia followed by 2 h of reperfusion; (iii) the ischemic preconditioning group (IP, n = 10), the left lower limbs of rats were exposed to three cycles of IP (10 min of ischemia followed by 10 min of reperfusion); and (iv) the ischemic preconditioning plus ischemia reperfusion group (IP/IR, n = 10) underwent IP followed by IR as in the IP and IR groups. Plasma and tissue samples were taken at the end of the study period for determination of lung tissue myeloperoxidase activity (MPO) and polymorphonuclear leukocyte count (PMNL), histological lung injury score and plasma thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) level. PMNL count and MPO activity in the lung tissue, and plasma TBARS level were higher in the IR group compared with other groups while there were no differences between the sham and the IP and between the sham and the IP/IR groups. Histological lung injury score was higher in the IR group than in the IP/IR and sham groups. The plasma TBARS level in the IP group was significantly lower than in the IP/IR group. IP pretreatment reduces lipid peroxidation and lung injury caused by lower limb IR.

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

4.2
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