Ventilation strategy has a major influence on remote ischaemic preconditioning in mice

Influence of strain, age, origin, and anesthesia on the cardioprotective efficacy by local and remote ischemic conditioning in an ex vivo rat model

Background

Local ischemic preconditioning (IPC) and remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) induced by brief periods of ischemia and reperfusion protect against ischemia‐reperfusion injury.

Methods

We studied the sensitivity to IR‐injury and the influence of strain, age, supplier, and anesthesia upon the efficacy of IPC and RIC in 7‐ and 16‐weeks‐old Sprague‐Dawley and Wistar rats from three different suppliers. The influence of sedation with a hypnorm and midazolam mixture (rodent mixture) and pentobarbiturate was compared.

Results

IPC attenuated infarct size in both 7‐weeks‐old Sprague–Dawley (48.4 ± 17.7% vs. 20.3 ± 6.9, p < 0.001) and 7‐weeks‐old Wistar (55.6 ± 10.9% vs. 26.8 ± 5.0%, p < 0.001) rats. Infarct size was larger in 16‐weeks‐old Sprague–Dawley rats, however, IPC still lowered infarct size (78.8 ± 9.2% vs. 58.3 ± 12.3%, p < 0.01). RIC reduced infarct sizes in 7‐weeks‐old Sprague–Dawley (75.3 ± 11.8% vs. 58.6 ± 8.9%, p < 0.05), but not in 7‐weeks‐old Wistar rats (31.7 ± 17.6% and 24.0 ± 12.6%, p = 0.2). In 16‐weeks‐old Sprague–Dawley rats, RIC did not induce protection (76.4 ± 5.5% and 73.2 ± 14.7%, p = 0.6). However, RIC induced protection in 16‐weeks‐old Wistar rats (45.2 ± 8.5% vs. 14.7 ± 10.8%, p < 0.001). RIC did not reduce infarct size in 7‐weeks‐old Sprague–Dawley rats from Charles River (62.0 ± 13.5% and 69.4 ± 10.4% p = 0.3) or 16‐weeks‐old Wistar rats from Janvier (50.7 ± 11.3 and 49.2 ± 16.2, p = 0.8). There was no difference between sedation with rodent mixture or pentobarbiturate.

Conclusion

The cardioprotective effect of IPC is consistent across rat strains independent of age, strain, and supplier. RIC seems to be less reproducible, but still yields protection across different rat strains. However, age, animal supplier, and anesthetics may modulate the sensitivity of IR‐injury and the response to RIC.

Targeting myocardial ischaemic injury in the absence of reperfusion

Sudden myocardial ischaemia causes an acute coronary syndrome. In the case of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), this is usually caused by the acute rupture of atherosclerotic plaque and obstruction of a coronary artery. Timely restoration of blood flow can reduce infarct size, but ischaemic regions of myocardium remain in up to two-thirds of patients due to microvascular obstruction (MVO). Experimentally, cardioprotective strategies can limit infarct size, but these are primarily intended to target reperfusion injury. Here, we address the question of whether it is possible to specifically prevent ischaemic injury, for example in models of chronic coronary artery occlusion. Two main types of intervention are identified: those that preserve ATP levels by reducing myocardial oxygen consumption, (e.g. hypothermia; cardiac unloading; a reduction in heart rate or contractility; or ischaemic preconditioning), and those that increase myocardial oxygen/blood supply (e.g. collateral vessel dilation). An important consideration in these studies is the method used to assess infarct size, which is not straightforward in the absence of reperfusion. After several hours, most of the ischaemic area is likely to become infarcted, unless it is supplied by pre-formed collateral vessels. Therefore, therapies that stimulate the formation of new collaterals can potentially limit injury during subsequent exposure to ischaemia. After a prolonged period of ischaemia, the heart undergoes a remodelling process. Interventions, such as those targeting inflammation, may prevent adverse remodelling. Finally, harnessing of the endogenous process of myocardial regeneration has the potential to restore cardiomyocytes lost during infarction.