Is there a role for ischaemic conditioning in cardiac surgery?

Interaction of Cardiovascular Nonmodifiable Risk Factors, Comorbidities and Comedications With Ischemia/Reperfusion Injury and Cardioprotection by Pharmacological Treatments and Ischemic Conditioning

Preconditioning, postconditioning, and remote conditioning of the myocardium enhance the ability of the heart to withstand a prolonged ischemia/reperfusion insult and the potential to provide novel therapeutic paradigms for cardioprotection. While many signaling pathways leading to endogenous cardioprotection have been elucidated in experimental studies over the past 30 years, no cardioprotective drug is on the market yet for that indication. One likely major reason for this failure to translate cardioprotection into patient benefit is the lack of rigorous and systematic preclinical evaluation of promising cardioprotective therapies prior to their clinical evaluation, since ischemic heart disease in humans is a complex disorder caused by or associated with cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities. These risk factors and comorbidities induce fundamental alterations in cellular signaling cascades that affect the development of ischemia/reperfusion injury and responses to cardioprotective interventions. Moreover, some of the medications used to treat these comorbidities may impact on cardioprotection by again modifying cellular signaling pathways. The aim of this article is to review the recent evidence that cardiovascular risk factors as well as comorbidities and their medications may modify the response to cardioprotective interventions. We emphasize the critical need for taking into account the presence of cardiovascular risk factors as well as comorbidities and their concomitant medications when designing preclinical studies for the identification and validation of cardioprotective drug targets and clinical studies. This will hopefully maximize the success rate of developing rational approaches to effective cardioprotective therapies for the majority of patients with multiple comorbidities. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Ischemic heart disease is a major cause of mortality; however, there are still no cardioprotective drugs on the market. Most studies on cardioprotection have been undertaken in animal models of ischemia/reperfusion in the absence of comorbidities; however, ischemic heart disease develops with other systemic disorders (e.g., hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, atherosclerosis). Here we focus on the preclinical and clinical evidence showing how these comorbidities and their routine medications affect ischemia/reperfusion injury and interfere with cardioprotective strategies.

Negative interaction between nitrates and remote ischemic preconditioning in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: the ERIC-GTN and ERICCA studies

Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) using transient limb ischaemia failed to improve clinical outcomes following cardiac surgery and the reasons for this remain unclear. In the ERIC-GTN study, we evaluated whether concomitant nitrate therapy abrogated RIPC cardioprotection. We also undertook a post-hoc analysis of the ERICCA study, to investigate a potential negative interaction between RIPC and nitrates on clinical outcomes following cardiac surgery. In ERIC-GTN, 185 patients undergoing cardiac surgery were randomized to: (1) Control (no RIPC or nitrates); (2) RIPC alone; (3); Nitrates alone; and (4) RIPC + Nitrates. An intravenous infusion of nitrates (glyceryl trinitrate 1 mg/mL solution) was commenced on arrival at the operating theatre at a rate of 2-5 mL/h to maintain a mean arterial pressure between 60 and 70 mmHg and was stopped when the patient was taken off cardiopulmonary bypass. The primary endpoint was peri-operative myocardial injury (PMI) quantified by a 48-h area-under-the-curve high-sensitivity Troponin-T (48 h-AUC-hs-cTnT). In ERICCA, we analysed data for 1502 patients undergoing cardiac surgery to investigate for a potential negative interaction between RIPC and nitrates on clinical outcomes at 12-months. In ERIC-GTN, RIPC alone reduced 48 h-AUC-hs-cTnT by 37.1%, when compared to control (ratio of AUC 0.629 [95% CI 0.413-0.957], p = 0.031), and this cardioprotective effect was abrogated in the presence of nitrates. Treatment with nitrates alone did not reduce 48 h-AUC-hs-cTnT, when compared to control. In ERICCA there was a negative interaction between nitrate use and RIPC for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality at 12-months, and for risk of peri-operative myocardial infarction. RIPC alone reduced the risk of peri-operative myocardial infarction, compared to control, but no significant effect of RIPC was demonstrated for the other outcomes. When RIPC and nitrates were used together they had an adverse impact in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with the presence of nitrates abrogating RIPC-induced cardioprotection and increasing the risk of mortality at 12-months post-cardiac surgery in patients receiving RIPC.

Ischemic postconditioning improves the outcome of organs from donors after cardiac death in a pig liver transplantation model and provides synergistic protection with hypothermic machine perfusion

AIM

This study investigated whether ischemic postconditioning (IPO) improved the outcome of organs from donors after cardiac death and had a synergistic effect with hypothermic machine perfusion (HMP) in a pig liver transplantation model.

METHODS

A donor after cardiac death (DCD) model was developed in 48 healthy Bama miniature pigs randomly divided into four groups: simple cold storage group (SCS group), IPO group, HMP group, HMP-IPO group. The levels of serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT), total bilirubin, histopathological findings, apoptotic activity of hepatocytes, international normalized ratio (INR), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), and Malondialdehyde (MDA) were compared.

RESULTS

All recipients in the SCS group died within 6 h after transplantation. The livers of the recipients in the IPO had 50% survival on day 5. HMP allowed 83.3% survival and HMP-IPO allowed 100% survival. After reperfusion, the recipients in the IPO and HMP-IPO group had lower ALT and total bilirubin levels, less Suzuki score, less apoptosis, and less injury to hepatocytes and biliary ducts and attenuated inflammatory response and oxidative load.

CONCLUSIONS

IPO improved the outcome of organs from donors after cardiac death and had a synergistic effect with HMP in the pig liver transplantation model.

Mitochondrial Dysfunction in Cardiac Surgery

Mitochondria are key to the cellular response to energetic demand, but are also vital to reactive oxygen species signaling, calcium hemostasis, and regulation of cell death. Cardiac surgical patients with diabetes, heart failure, advanced age, or cardiomyopathies may have underlying mitochondrial dysfunction or be more sensitive to perioperative mitochondrial injury. Mitochondrial dysfunction, due to ischemia/reperfusion injury and an increased systemic inflammatory response due to exposure to cardiopulmonary bypass and surgical tissue trauma, impacts myocardial contractility and predisposes to arrhythmias. Strategies for perioperative mitochondrial protection and recovery include both well-established cardioprotective protocols and targeted therapies that remain under investigation.

Sevoflurane, Propofol and Carvedilol Block Myocardial Protection by Limb Remote Ischemic Preconditioning

The effects of remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) in cardiac surgery have been inconsistent. We investigated whether anesthesia or beta-blockers interfere with RIPC cardioprotection. Fifty patients undergoing cardiac surgery were randomized to receive limb RIPC (four cycles of 5-min of upper arm cuff inflation/deflation) in the awake state (no-anesthesia; n = 17), or under sevoflurane (n = 17) or propofol (n = 16) anesthesia. In a separate crossover study, 11 healthy volunteers received either carvedilol or no medication prior to RIPC. Plasma dialysates were obtained and perfused through an isolated male Sprague⁻Dawley rat heart subjected to 30-min ischemia/60-min reperfusion, following which myocardial infarct (MI) size was determined. In the cardiac surgery study, pre-RIPC MI sizes were similar among the groups (39.7 ± 4.5% no-anesthesia, 38.9 ± 5.3% sevoflurane, and 38.6 ± 3.6% propofol). However, post-RIPC MI size was reduced in the no-anesthesia group (27.5 ± 8.0%; p < 0.001), but not in the anesthesia groups (35.7 ± 6.9% sevoflurane and 35.8 ± 5.8% propofol). In the healthy volunteer study, there was a reduction in MI size with RIPC in the no-carvedilol group (41.7 ± 4.3% to 30.6 ± 8.5%; p < 0.0001), but not in the carvedilol group (41.0 ± 4.0% to 39.6 ± 5.6%; p = 0.452). We found that the cardioprotective effects of limb RIPC were abolished under propofol or sevoflurane anesthesia and in the presence of carvedilol therapy.

Circulating mediators of remote ischemic preconditioning: search for the missing link between non-lethal ischemia and cardioprotection

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity worldwide. There has been an extensive search for cardioprotective therapies to reduce myocardial ischemia-reperfusion (I/R) injury. Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) is a phenomenon that relies on the body's endogenous protective modalities against I/R injury. In RIPC, non-lethal brief I/R of one organ or tissue confers protection against subsequent lethal I/R injury in an organ remote to the briefly ischemic organ or tissue. Initially it was believed to be limited to direct myocardial protection, however it soon became apparent that RIPC applied to other organs such as kidney, liver, intestine, skeletal muscle can reduce myocardial infarct size. Intriguing discoveries have been made in extending the concept of RIPC to other organs than the heart. Over the years, the underlying mechanisms of RIPC have been widely sought and discussed. The involvement of blood-borne factors as mediators of RIPC has been suggested by a number of research groups. The main purpose of this review article is to summarize the possible circulating mediators of RIPC, and recent studies to establish the clinical efficacy of these mediators in cardioprotection from lethal I/R injury.

Volatile anesthetics versus propofol in the cardiac surgical setting of remote ischemic preconditioning: a secondary analysis of a Cochrane Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

So far, the concept of remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) failed its translation from experimental to clinical studies. In addition to our Cochrane Systematic Review, we systematically assessed the use of the intravenous anesthetic propofol, as a potential confounding factor.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science. We included randomized controlled trials comparing RIPC with no RIPC in adult patients scheduled for coronary artery bypass graft surgery (with or without valve surgery) receiving either exclusively propofol or exclusively volatile anesthetics. Two authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data. We report odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals as our summary statistics are based on random-effects models.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We included 14 studies involving 4060 participants. We found no difference in treatment effect between the propofol and volatile anesthetic groups when RIPC or no RIPC is applied on a composite endpoint (all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction and/or any new stroke), all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or length of stay on ICU. On cardiac markers, RIPC did show a treatment effect on cardiac troponin T measured as AUC 72 hours (SMD -0.80, CI -1.34, -0.25) in the propofol group. However, these findings have to be interpreted with great caution, to date only a very limited number of patients received volatile anesthetics in RIPC trials (minimum N.=15, maximum N.=232).

CONCLUSIONS

Present data do not permit a final assessment regarding the role of volatile or intravenous anesthetics as a possible confounding factor in RIPC trials.