Tissue-Specific Metabolic Profiles After Prolonged Cardiac Arrest Reveal Brain Metabolome Dysfunction Predominantly After Resuscitation

Background

Cardiac arrest (CA) has been a leading cause of death for many decades. Despite years of research, we still do not understand how each organ responds to the reintroduction of blood flow after prolonged CA. Following changes in metabolites of individual organs after CA and resuscitation gives context to the efficiency and limitations of current resuscitation protocols.

Methods and Results

Adult male Sprague–Dawley rats were arbitrarily assigned into 3 groups: control, 20 minutes of CA, or 20 minutes of CA followed by 30 minutes of cardiopulmonary bypass resuscitation. The rats were euthanized by decapitation to harvest brain, heart, kidney, and liver tissues. The obtained tissue samples were analyzed by ultra‐high‐performance liquid chromatography–high‐accuracy mass spectrometry for comprehensive metabolomics evaluation. After resuscitation, the brain showed decreased glycolysis metabolites and fatty acids and increased amino acids compared with control. Similarly, the heart displayed alterations mostly in amino acids. The kidney showed decreased amino acid and fatty acid pools with severely increased tricarboxylic acid cycle metabolites following resuscitation, while the liver showed minimal alterations with slight changes in the lipid pool. Each tissue has a distinct pattern of metabolite changes after ischemia/reperfusion. Furthermore, resuscitation worsens the metabolic dysregulation in the brain and kidney, while it normalizes metabolism in the heart.

Conclusions

Developing metabolic profiles using a global metabolome analysis identifies the variable nature of metabolites in individual organs after CA and reperfusion, establishing a stark contrast between the normalized heart and liver and the exacerbated brain and kidney, only after the reestablishment of blood circulation.

Is funding source related to study reporting quality in obesity or nutrition randomized control trials in top-tier medical journals?

BACKGROUND

Faithful and complete reporting of trial results is essential to the validity of the scientific literature. An earlier systematic study of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found that industry-funded RCTs appeared to be reported with greater quality than non-industry-funded RCTs. The aim of this study was to examine the association between systematic differences in reporting quality and funding status (that is, industry funding vs non-industry funding) among recent obesity and nutrition RCTs published in top-tier medical journals.

METHODS

Thirty-eight obesity or nutrition intervention RCT articles were selected from high-profile, general medical journals (The Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA and the British Medical Journal) published between 2000 and 2007. Paired papers were selected from the same journal published in the same year, one with and the other without industry funding. The following identifying information was redacted: journal, title, authors, funding source and institution(s). Then three raters independently and blindly rated each paper according to the Chalmers method, and total reporting quality scores were calculated.

FINDINGS

The inter-rater reliability (Cronbach's alpha) was 0.82 (95% confidence interval = 0.80-0.84). The total mean (M) and s.d. of Chalmers Index quality score (out of a possible 100) for industry-funded studies were M = 84.5, s.d. = 7.04 and for non-industry-funded studies they were M = 79.4, s.d. = 13.00. A Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test indicates no significant rank difference in the distributions of total quality scores between funding sources, Z = -0.966, P = 0.334 (two tailed).

INTERPRETATION

Recently published RCTs on nutrition and obesity that appear in top-tier journals seem to be equivalent in quality of reporting, regardless of funding source. This may be a result of recent reporting of quality statements and efforts of journal editors to raise all papers to a common standard.