Loading…

Propofol improves recovery of the isolated working hypertrophic heart from ischaemia–reperfusion

The general anaesthetic propofol shows promise in protecting normal hearts against various cardiac insults, but little is known about its cardioprotective potential in hypertrophic hearts. This study tested the hypothesis that propofol at a clinically relevant dose would enhance functional recovery...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Pflügers Archiv 2012-11, Vol.464 (5), p.513-522
Main Authors: King, Nicola, Al Shaama, Madj, Suleiman, M.-Saadeh
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The general anaesthetic propofol shows promise in protecting normal hearts against various cardiac insults, but little is known about its cardioprotective potential in hypertrophic hearts. This study tested the hypothesis that propofol at a clinically relevant dose would enhance functional recovery in hypertrophic hearts following ischaemia. Hypertrophic hearts from spontaneously hypertensive rats and hearts from their normotensive controls, Wistar Kyoto Rats, were equilibrated in the working mode prior to global normothermic ischaemia. Reperfusion commenced with 10 min in Langendorff mode, followed by 30-min working reperfusion. Functional performance was measured throughout the working mode, whilst reperfusion damage was assessed from myocardial troponin I release during Langendorff reperfusion. Where used, 4 μg/ml propofol was added 10 min before ischaemia and was washed out 10 min into working reperfusion. An additional protocol investigated recovery of hearts protected by normothermic hyperkalaemic cardioplegic arrest. Following 20-min ischaemia, reperfusion damage was significantly worse in hypertrophic hearts compared to normal hearts, whilst addition of propofol to hypertrophic hearts significantly improved the aortic flow (31 ± 5.8 vs. 11.6 ± 2.0 ml/min, n  = 6–7 ± SE, p  
ISSN:0031-6768
1432-2013
DOI:10.1007/s00424-012-1152-5