Cardioprotective effect of combination therapy by mild hypothermia and local or remote ischemic preconditioning in isolated rat hearts

A multitargeted strategy to treat the consequences of ischemia and reperfusion (IR) injury in acute myocardial infarction may add cardioprotection beyond reperfusion therapy alone. We investigated the cardioprotective effect of mild hypothermia combined with local ischemic preconditioning (IPC) or remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) on IR injury in isolated rat hearts. Moreover, we aimed to define the optimum timing of initiating hypothermia and evaluate underlying cardioprotective mechanisms. Compared to infarct size in normothermic controls (56 ± 4%), mild hypothermia during the entire or final 20 min of the ischemic period reduced infarct size (34 ± 2%, p < 0.01; 35 ± 5%, p < 0.01, respectively), while no reduction was seen when hypothermia was initiated at reperfusion (51 ± 4%, p = 0.90). In all groups with effect of mild hypothermia, IPC further reduced infarct size. In contrast, we found no additive effect on infarct size between hypothermic controls (20 ± 3%) and the combination of mild hypothermia and RIC (33 ± 4%, p = 0.09). Differences in temporal lactate dehydrogenase release patterns suggested an anti-ischemic effect by mild hypothermia, while IPC and RIC preferentially targeted reperfusion injury. In conclusion, additive underlying mechanisms seem to provide an additive effect of mild hypothermia and IPC, whereas the more clinically applicable RIC does not add cardioprotection beyond mild hypothermia

Remote ischemic preconditioning impairs ventricular function and increases infarct size after prolonged ischemia in the isolated neonatal rabbit heart.

OBJECTIVES: Remote ischemic preconditioning (rIPC) reduces myocardial injury in adults and children undergoing cardiac surgery. We compared the effect of rIPC in adult and neonatal rabbits to investigate whether protection against ischemia-reperfusion injury can be achieved in the newborn heart by (1) in vivo rIPC and (2) dialysate from adult rabbits undergoing rIPC. METHODS: Isolated hearts from newborn and adult rabbits were randomized into 3 subgroups (control, in vivo rIPC, and dialysate obtained from adult, remotely preconditioned rabbits). Remote preconditioning was induced by four 5-minute cycles of lower limb ischemia. Left ventricular (LV) function was assessed using a balloon-tipped catheter, glycolytic flux by tracer kinetics, and infarct size by tetrazolium staining. Isolated hearts underwent stabilization while perfused with standard Krebs-Henseleit buffer (control and in vivo rIPC) or Krebs-Henseleit buffer with added dialysate, followed by global no-flow ischemia and reperfusion. RESULTS: Within the age groups, the baseline LV function was similar in all subgroups. In the adult rabbit hearts, rIPC and rIPC dialysate attenuated glycolytic flux and protected against ischemia-reperfusion injury, with better-preserved LV function compared with that of the controls. In contrast, in the neonatal hearts, the glycolytic flux was lower and LV function was better preserved in the controls than in the rIPC and dialysate groups. In the adult hearts, the infarct size was reduced in the rIPC and dialysate groups compared with that in the controls. In the neonatal hearts, the infarct size was smaller in the controls than in the rIPC and dialysate groups. CONCLUSIONS: Remote ischemic preconditioning does not protect against ischemia-reperfusion injury in isolated newborn rabbit hearts and might even cause deleterious effects. Similar adverse effects were induced by dialysate from remotely preconditioned adult rabbits

Aldehyde dehydrogenase-2 inhibition blocks remote preconditioning in experimental and human models.

Mitochondrial aldehyde dehydrogenase-2 (ALDH-2) is involved in preconditioning pathways, but its role in remote ischaemic preconditioning (rIPC) is unknown. We investigated its role in animal and human models of rIPC. (i) In a rabbit model of myocardial infarction, rIPC alone reduced infarct size [69 ± 5.8 % (n = 11) to 40 ± 6.5 % (n = 12), P = 0.019]. However, rIPC protection was lost after pre-treatment with the ALDH-2 inhibitor cyanamide (62 ± 7.6 % controls, n = 10, versus 61 ± 6.9 % rIPC after cyanamide, n = 10, P &gt; 0.05). (ii) In a forearm plethysmography model of endothelial ischaemia-reperfusion injury, 24 individuals of Asian ethnic origin underwent combined rIPC and ischaemia-reperfusion (IR). 11 had wild-type (WT) enzyme and 13 carried the Glu504Lys (ALDH2*2) polymorphism (rendering ALDH-2 functionally inactive). In WT individuals, rIPC protected against impairment of response to acetylcholine (P = 0.9), but rIPC failed to protect carriers of Glu504Lys polymorphism (P = 0.004). (iii) In a second model of endothelial IR injury, 12 individuals participated in a double-blind placebo-controlled crossover study, receiving the ALDH-2 inhibitor disulfiram 600 mg od or placebo for 48 h prior to assessment of flow-mediated dilation (FMD) before and after combined rIPC and IR. With placebo, rIPC was effective with no difference in FMD before and after IR (6.18 ± 1.03 % and 4.76 ± 0.93 % P = 0.1), but disulfiram inhibited rIPC with a reduction in FMD after IR (7.87 ± 1.27 % and 3.05 ± 0.53 %, P = 0.001). This study demonstrates that ALDH-2 is involved in the rIPC pathway in three distinct rabbit and human models. This has potential implications for future clinical studies of remote conditioning