Abstract

In contrast to several smaller studies, which demonstrate that remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) reduces myocardial injury in patients that undergo cardiovascular surgery, the RIPHeart study failed to demonstrate beneficial effects of troponin release and clinical outcome in propofol-anesthetized cardiac surgery patients. Therefore, we addressed the potential biochemical mechanisms triggered by RIPC. This is a predefined prospective sub-analysis of the randomized and controlled RIPHeart study in cardiac surgery patients (n = 40) that was recently published. Blood samples were drawn from patients prior to surgery, after RIPC of four cycles of 5 min arm ischemia/5 min reperfusion (n = 19) and the sham (n = 21) procedure, after connection to cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), at the end of surgery, 24 h postoperatively, and 48 h postoperatively for the measurement of troponin T, macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF), stromal cell-derived factor 1 (CXCL12), IL-6, CXCL8, and IL-10. After RIPC, right atrial tissue samples were taken for the measurement of extracellular-signal regulated kinase (ERK1/2), protein kinase B (AKT), Glycogen synthase kinase 3 (GSK-3β), protein kinase C (PKCε), and MIF content. RIPC did not significantly reduce the troponin release when compared with the sham procedure. MIF serum levels intraoperatively increased, peaking at intensive care unit (ICU) admission (with an increase of 48.04%, p = 0.164 in RIPC; and 69.64%, p = 0.023 over the baseline in the sham procedure), and decreased back to the baseline 24 h after surgery, with no differences between the groups. In the right atrial tissue, MIF content decreased after RIPC (1.040 ± 1.032 Arbitrary units [au] in RIPC vs. 2.028 ± 1.631 [au] in the sham procedure, p < 0.05). CXCL12 serum levels increased significantly over the baseline at the end of surgery, with no differences between the groups. ERK1/2, AKT, GSK-3β, and PKCɛ phosphorylation in the right atrial samples were no different between the groups. No difference was found in IL-6, CXCL8, and IL10 serum levels between the groups. In this cohort of cardiac surgery patients that received propofol anesthesia, we could not show a release of potential mediators of signaling, nor an effect on the inflammatory response, nor an activation of well-established protein kinases after RIPC. Based on these data, we cannot exclude that confounding factors, such as propofol, may have interfered with RIPC.

Highlights

  • Ischemic preconditioning has been widely introduced as it is the most powerful cardioprotective strategy to reduce myocardial infarct size

  • In this cohort of cardiac surgery patients that received propofol anesthesia, we could not show a release of potential mediators of signaling, nor an effect on the inflammatory response, nor an activation of well-established protein kinases after remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC)

  • Smaller clinical studies were stimulated by these promising findings, which confirmed that RIPC mediated the reduction of perioperative troponin release in patients after cardiac surgery [5,6]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Ischemic preconditioning has been widely introduced as it is the most powerful cardioprotective strategy to reduce myocardial infarct size. Smaller clinical studies were stimulated by these promising findings, which confirmed that RIPC mediated the reduction of perioperative troponin release in patients after cardiac surgery [5,6] Promising, these results were initially limited to smaller patient populations and surrogate outcome measures of myocardial injury—rather than clinical outcomes—and fueled the need for adequately powered multicenter trials in order to test the clinical significance of RIPC. Both of the recently published ERICCA [7] and RIPHeart [8] trials failed to demonstrate a reduction in postoperative troponin release and clinically significant effects of RIPC on postoperative outcomes in cardiac surgery patients. The underlying reasons remain largely speculative, it is currently being debated whether the RIPC stimulus was ineffective in these patients due to the use of the intravenous anesthetic propofol, which may have negatively affected and interfered with RIPC induced effects [9]

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call