The Comparative Myocardial Protection by Propofol and Isoflurane in an In Vivo Model of Ischemia Reperfusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anesthetic Agents protect the heart from ischemic injury during perioperative period. We evaluated the protective effects of 2 anesagents on myocardial ischemia -reperfusion injury in rabbit models. METHODS: 58 anesthetized and mechaniventilated rabbits randomly received isoflurane (ISO) 2%, propofol (PRP), or were observed as the control group for 15 minutes. We applied vascular tourniquet around the left anterior descending artery (LAD). Myocardium was reperfused for 4 hours. Derivative of pressure over time (dP/dT(max)), left ventricular pressure (dLVP), isovolumetric relaxation time (Tau), and segment shortening (SS) were measured over the ischemic and non-ischemic regions of left ventricle (LV). Cardiac troponin I (cTnI), tissue concentrations of tumor necrosis factor á (TNFá), myeloperoxidase activity assay (MPO), and tissue malonyl dialdehyde (MDA) concentrations were measured as indices of cellular injury and inflammatory response. RESULTS: dP/dT(max) values significantly decreased during ischemia. Following reperfusion, dP/dT(max), dLVP, and Tau remained depressed in the control animals. Both PRP and ISO restored the function of the myocardium globally. CONCLUSION: Only ISO improved the recovery of the ischemic myocardium during reperfusion. The effects of PRP were global in nature and involved compensatory hypercontractile state in nonischemic regions of the myocardium. Implication. PRP and ISO protect the heart against an ischemic injury, but only ISO preserves the function of the myocardium at the ischemic region. The survival rate of the PRP-treated group versus the ISO-treated group supports the claim that PRP has smaller contribution to recovery from myocardial ischemia.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".