MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Anesthetic Preconditioning Combined with Postconditioning Offers No Additional Benefit Over Preconditioning or Postconditioning Alone

2007· article· en· W2061537517 on OpenAlexaff
David I. Deyhimy, Neal Fleming, Ian G. Brodkin, Hong Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Ischemia and Reperfusion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver General Hospital
FundersNational Center for Research Resources
KeywordsMedicineIschemic preconditioningSevofluraneVentricular pressureCardiologyAnesthesiaMyocardial infarctionInternal medicineIschemiaAnestheticDiastoleHemodynamicsBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief BACKGROUND: Recent investigations demonstrate that anesthetic preconditioning and postconditioning reduce myocardial infarct size to a degree comparable to that achieved with ischemic preconditioning. We hypothesized that the combination of sevoflurane preconditioning and postconditioning would result in greater preservation of myocardium. METHODS: Langendorff perfused rat hearts were divided into four groups: control, preconditioning, postconditioning, and preconditioning plus postconditioning. During reperfusion, left ventricular function (left ventricular developed pressure, left ventricular end diastolic pressure, and dp/dt) were measured. At the end of reperfusion, the infarct sizes were measured with 2,3,5 triphenyltetrazolium chloride staining. Nuclear magnetic resonance was used to measure intracellular pH, Na+, and Ca2+. RESULTS: Left ventricular developed pressure, left ventricular end diastolic pressure, left ventricular dp/dtmax and dp/dtmin were significantly improved in the treatment groups when compared with those in the controls. Myocardial infarct size (24% ± 7%, 16% ± 8%, and 22% ± 7% in preconditioning, postconditioning, and pre-plus postconditioning groups versus 44% ± 8% in the control group, P < 0.05) and intracellular Na+ and Ca2+ were significantly decreased in all experimental groups at the end of reperfusion when compared with those in control. However, there were no differences between these variables in each treatment group. CONCLUSION: Sevoflurane postconditioning is as effective as preconditioning in protecting myocardial function after global ischemia. The combination of sevoflurane preconditioning and postconditioning offered no additional benefit over either intervention alone. IMPLICATIONS: The results of this study support the hypothesis that exposure to sevoflurane during the early minutes of reperfusion (anesthetic postconditioning) attenuates reperfusion injury resulting in preservation of myocardial function and decreased infarct size comparable to anesthetic preconditioning. The combination of anesthetic preconditioning and postconditioning offered no additional benefit over either intervention alone.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.361
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations71
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicCardiac Ischemia and ReperfusionFrench-language works237,207