MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Remote ischemic preconditioning with but not without metabolic support protects the neonatal porcine heart against ischemia-reperfusion injury

2013· article· en· W2332361727 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Rahbek Schmidt, N. B. Stoettrup, Andrew N. Redington, Rajesh Kharbanda, Hans Erik Boetker

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Ischemia and Reperfusion
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIschemic preconditioningIschemiaCardiologyAnesthesiaReperfusion injuryInternal medicineMicrodialysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: While remote ischemic preconditioning (rIPC) protects the mature heart against ischemia-reperfusion (IR) injury, the effect of rIPC on the neonatal heart is not known. The neonatal heart relies almost solely on carbohydrate metabolism, which is modified by rIPC in the mature heart. Glucose-insulin (GI) infusion provides myocardial substrate supplementation, which may compensate for adverse metabolic effects induced by rIPC in the immature heart. We hypothesized that rIPC combined with GI improves cardiac function and reduces infarcts size compared to control or rIPC alone after IR injury in neonatal piglet in-vivo. Methods: 32 newborn (1-4 days old) piglets were randomized into 4 groups: control, rIPC, GI and GI+rIPC. GI and GI+rIPC groups received insulin in 20% glucose at a rate corresponding to 100 mU/kg/h continuously from 40 minutes prior to ischemia. rIPC and GI+rIPC groups underwent four cycles of 5 minutes limb ischemia followed by 5 minutes reperfusion. Myocardial IR injury was induced by 40 minutes occlusion of the left anterior descending artery followed by 2 hours reperfusion. Left ventricular pressure was measured using 3F Millar Mikro-Tip catheters. Metabolomic assessment of lactate and intermediary metabolites was performed using microdialysis samples analyzed by mass spectrometry. Infarct size was measured using triphenyltetrazolium chloride staining. Results: Systolic recovery (dP/dtmax as % of baseline) after 2h reperfusion was improved in GI+rIPC (86.8±5.8%) compared to control (68.6±4.9%, p<0.05) and rIPC (53.9±8.8%, p<0.01) but not different from GI (83.6±8.2%, ns). Lactate levels (% of baseline) 30 minutes into reperfusion were lower in GI+rIPC (91.5±4.9%) compared to control (182.1±9.1%, p<0.01) and rIPC (235.1±31.1%, p<0.01). Succinate accumulation occurred in all groups as response to IR injury, but this accumulation was strongly accentuated in the rIPC group. Infarct size relative to area at risk was 12.7±1.1% in GI+rIPC compared to 16.4±1.5% in control (p=0.06), 18.1±0.8% in rIPC (p<0.01) and 24.1±2.1% in GI. Conclusion: rIPC+GI, but neither rIPC nor GI alone protects the neonatal porcine heart against IR injury in-vivo. rIPC alone appears to have detrimental metabolic and functional effects that are compensated by simultaneous metabolic support with GI infusion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicCardiac Ischemia and ReperfusionFrench-language works237,207