Effects of intermittent lower limb ischaemia on coronary blood flow and coronary resistance in pigs
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AIM: Intermittent limb ischaemia prior to cardiac ischaemia is a cardioprotective stimulus. This study was to investigate whether this peripheral stimulus had any effects on basal coronary blood flow and resistance, and to explore its potential mechanisms by studying the effect of femoral nerve transection and Katp blockade by glibenclamide. METHODS: Remote ischaemic preconditioning (rIPC) was induced by four 5-min cycles of lower limb ischaemia. Coronary resistance was measured using standard formulae and coronary blood flow in the left anterior descending artery (LAD) by a flow probe. In experiment 1, coronary ischaemia was induced by inflation of a cuff placed around the mid-LAD, and inflated until cessation of flow. Left ventricular (LV) function was assessed using dp/dt and Tau at 1 and 30 min of ischaemia. Experiment 1: 20 pigs were randomized to control (n = 6), rIPC (n = 7) or femoral nerve transection + rIPC (n = 7) groups. The femoral nerve was transected before the rIPC protocol. All data were collected at fixed heart rates of 120 bpm. Coronary resistance was decreased and flow was increased significantly by the rIPC stimulus (P = 0.003, P = 0.016, paired t-test), and these changes were preserved after femoral nerve transection. Experiment 2: 19 pigs were randomized to control (n = 5), rIPC (n = 8) or glibenclamide-treated rIPC (n = 6) groups. Data were collected at baseline, and during incremental pacing between 120 and 180 bpm. RESULTS: Experiment 1: Coronary resistance was decreased and flow was increased significantly by rIPC stimulus (P = 0.003, P = 0.016, paired t-test), and these changes were preserved after femoral nerve transaction. rIPC was associated with superior LV function (dp/dt(max)) at 30 min, compared with controls and the rIPC + femoral nerve transaction group. Experiment 2: Coronary resistance was significantly lower, and LAD flow was significantly higher in rIPC group (P < 0.0001, P = 0.0008, two-way anova). These effects were reversed in the glibenclamide group. CONCLUSION: The rIPC stimulus leads to reduced coronary resistance and increased flow. This effect, while modified by glibenclamide appears to be a generic effect of remote ischaemia rather than a direct preconditioning effect.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle