Editorial III

Intermittent exposure to xenon protects against gentamicin-induced nephrotoxicity

Aminoglycoside antibiotics, especially gentamicin, are widely used to treat Gram-negative infections due to their efficacy and low cost. Nevertheless the use of gentamicin is limited by its major side effect, nephrotoxicity. Xenon (Xe) provided substantial organoprotective effects in acute injury of the brain and the heart and protected against renal ischemic-reperfusion injury. In this study, we investigated whether xenon could protect against gentamicin-induced nephrotoxicity. Male Wistar rats were intermittently exposed to either 70% xenon or 70% nitrogen (N₂) balanced with 30% oxygen before and during gentamicin administration at a dose of 100 mg/kg for 7 days to model gentamicin-induced kidney injury. We observed that intermittent exposure to Xe provided morphological and functional renoprotection, which was characterized by attenuation of renal tubular damage, apoptosis, and oxidative stress, but not a reduction in inflammation. We also found that Xe pretreatment upregulated hypoxia-inducible factor 2α (HIF-2α) and its downstream effector vascular endothelial growth factor, but not HIF-1α. With regard to the three HIF prolyl hydroxylases, Xe pretreatment upregulated prolyl hydroxylase domain-containing protein-2 (PHD2), suppressed PHD1, and had no influence on PHD3 in the rat kidneys. Pretreatment with Xe also increased the expression of miR-21, a microRNA known to have anti-apoptotic effects. These results support Xe renoprotection against gentamicin-induced nephrotoxicity.

Comparison of xenon-based anaesthesia compared with total intravenous anaesthesia in high risk surgical patients

Xenon, a noble gas with anaesthetic and analgesic properties, has gained renewed interest due to its favourable physical properties which allow a rapid emergence from anaesthesia. However, high costs limit its use to a subset of patients who may benefit from xenon, thereby offsetting its costs. To date, there are only limited data available on the performance of xenon in high risk patients. We studied 39 patients with ASA physical status III undergoing aortic surgery. The patients were randomly assigned to either a xenon (Xe, n = 20) or a TIVA (T, n = 19) group. Global cardiac performance and myocardial contractility were assessed using transoesophageal echocardiography, and myocardial cell damage with troponin T and CK-MB. Echocardiographic measurements were made prior to xenon administration, following xenon administration, and after clamping of the abdominal aorta, after declamping and at corresponding time points in the TIVA group. Laboratory values were determined repeatedly for up to 72 h. Data were analysed using two-way anova factoring for time and anaesthetic agent or with ancova comparing linear regression lines. No significant differences were found in global myocardial performance, myocardial contractility or laboratory values at any time during the study period. Mean (SEM) duration of stay on the ICU (xenon: 38 +/- 46 vs. TIVA 25 +/- 15 h) or in hospital (xenon: 14 +/- 12 vs. TIVA 10 +/- 6 days) did not differ significantly between the groups. Although xenon has previously been shown to exert superior haemodynamic stability, we were unable to demonstrate an advantage of xenon-based anaesthesia compared to TIVA in high risk surgical patients.