Effects of intermittent lower limb ischaemia on coronary blood flow and coronary resistance in pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".