MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cardioprotection at a distance – remote conditioning takes the stage

2012· letter· en· W2077750328 on OpenAlexaff
Lionel H. Opie

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Physiology · 2012
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Ischemia and Reperfusion
Canadian institutionsCollège Lionel Groulx
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardioprotectionMedicineIschemic preconditioningIschemiaCardiologyMyocardial infarctionCoronary arteriesCoronary occlusionOcclusionInternal medicineArtery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardioprotection often means keeping the coronary arteries in good health. Increasingly and more logically, we are focussing on how best to protect the myocardium directly, and the most intriguing mode of protection is the subject of a recent paper in Experimental Physiology on remote conditioning by Basaly et al. (2012). Until a few years go, it would have stretched scientific belief that transient occlusion of the femoral arteries would protect the heart from ischaemic and reperfusion injury. Yet in 1993, Przyklenk et al. had shown how preconditioning of one area of the myocardium, by repeated coronary occlusions and reperfusion, could protect a distant myocardial zone, thereby setting the scene for remote preconditioning. Then in a flash of inspiration in 1996, Gho et al. found that brief occlusion of remote arteries in the abdomen protected against myocardial infarction. Regarding mechanisms, ganglion blockade abolished the protection. However, mainstream cardiologists paid little attention. Then we can fast-forward to Hausenloy & Yellon (2008), who elegantly extended the concept of remote organ protection beyond that of solely protecting the heart to providing ‘a general form of inter-organ protection against ischaemia–reperfusion injury’. Among the recent controversies in cardioprotection is whether reperfusion damage occurs rapidly and within minutes of reperfusion, but not thereafter, versus the novel point of view first proposed by Roubille et al. (2011) that application of postconditioning could be delayed. These workers, using a mouse model, were able to show in their article in Circulation that delayed postconditioning was effective in reducing infarct size up to 45 min after the onset of reperfusion. Thus, remote conditioning is a powerful tool, applicable both before and after the opening of the blocked coronary artery, as in an acute heart attack (acute myocardial infarction) by rapid percutaneous intervention. The article by Basaly et al. (2012), using a rat model, has tackled the mechanism of these important observations and confirmed that remote ischaemic conditioning applied to the femoral arteries was effective 10 min after the onset of reperfusion but, in this case, ineffective when applied 30 min afterwards. They confirmed that lethal reperfusion injury not only occurs very rapidly, within minutes after the onset of reperfusion, but that there could be a longer time delay for the therapeutic application of remote postconditioning. How do the messages travel from the remote site (in this case, the occluded–reperfused femoral arteries) to the heart? The two main mechanisms are travelling by the bloodstream or by the autonomic nervous system (Hausenloy & Yellon, 2008). The article by Basaly et al. (2012) stresses the role of the intact parasympathetic nervous system in remote ischaemic preconditioning. Another elegant article by Shimizu et al. (2009) found that diasylate of plasma from rabbits and humans with remote ischaemic preconditioning protected an isolated heart from necrosis. This protective effect was blocked by pretreatment with the opiate receptor blocker naloxone, the process thus requiring opioid receptor activation. The opioid receptors in turn respond to parasympathetic stimulation (Deo et al. 2009), so that mechanistically there seems to be a duet, with both parasympathic and vascular mechanisms playing mutually interactive roles. The involvement of the vagal/parasympathetic system in remote preconditioning, as shown by Basaly et al. (2012), is important and relevant. Certain drugs given to patients with acute infarction promote vagal activity; for example, morphine given for pain acts on opioid receptors. Other drugs, namely the β-receptor antagonists, promote vagal activity by blocking sympathetic activity. Added to that, remote preconditioning applied by repetitive intermittent limb occlusion by a blood pressure cuff should have an additive powerful protective effect. To prove the expectation that mortality in patients with threatened acute myocardial infarction could be reduced by remote preconditioning would require large, prospective, well-designed clinical studies, of which several are in the planning stage or the pipeline. Yet, in the meantime the harmless procedure of pumping up and down a blood pressure cuff can and should be applied in the ambulance with the knowledge that ultimate infarct size is modestly decreased and, there even better, are no serious adverse effects.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score0.841

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.260 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExperimental PhysiologySame topicCardiac Ischemia and ReperfusionFrench-language works237,207