Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30357563›Full record

ArticleIntensive care medicine experimental2018

Intravenous hydrogen sulfide does not induce neuroprotection after aortic balloon occlusion-induced spinal cord ischemia/reperfusion injury in a human-like porcine model of ubiquitous arteriosclerosis.

Andre Bredthauer, Karla Lehle, Angelika Scheuerle, Hubert Schelzig, Oscar McCook, Peter Radermacher, Csaba Szabo, Martin Wepler, Florian Simon

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Intensive care medicine experimental, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Recent Advances in Molecular Research on Hydrogen Sulfide (HInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. HIntensive care medicine experimental · 2020
    Review
  3. Interventions to improve perioperative neurologic outcomes.Current opinion in anaesthesiology · 2020
    Review
  4. Advancement in stroke research.Stroke and vascular neurology · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Andre BredthauerDepartment of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauß-Allee 11, 93053, Regensburg, Germany. andre.bredthauer@ukr.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5779-7714
Karla LehleDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University Hospital Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauß-Allee 11, 93053, Regensburg, Germany.
Angelika ScheuerleInstitute of Pathology - Section Neuropathology, University Hospital Ulm, Albert-Einstein-Allee 23, 89081, Ulm, Germany.
Hubert SchelzigDepartment of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Moorenstraße 5, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Oscar McCookInstitute of Anesthesiological Pathophysiology and Process Engineering, University Hospital Ulm, Helmholtzstraße 8/1, 89081, Ulm, Germany.
Peter RadermacherInstitute of Anesthesiological Pathophysiology and Process Engineering, University Hospital Ulm, Helmholtzstraße 8/1, 89081, Ulm, Germany.
Csaba SzaboDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Texas Medical Branch, 301 University Boulevard, Galveston, TX, 77555, USA.
Martin WeplerInstitute of Anesthesiological Pathophysiology and Process Engineering, University Hospital Ulm, Helmholtzstraße 8/1, 89081, Ulm, Germany.
Florian SimonInstitute of Anesthesiological Pathophysiology and Process Engineering, University Hospital Ulm, Helmholtzstraße 8/1, 89081, Ulm, Germany.
Helmholtz-Institute Ulm · DEUniversity Hospital Regensburg · DEHeinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DEThe University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston · USUniversität Ulm · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIn rodents, intravenous sulfide protected against spinal cord ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury during aortic balloon occlusion. We investigated the effect of intravenous sulfide on aortic occlusion-induced porcine spinal cord I/R injury.

methodsAnesthetized and mechanically ventilated "familial hypercholesterolemia Bretoncelles Meishan" (FBM) pigs with high-fat-diet-induced hypercholesterolemia and atherosclerosis were randomized to receive either intravenous sodium sulfide 2 h (initial bolus, 0.2 mg kg body weight (bw)

resultsA balloon occlusion time of 45 min resulted in marked ischemic neuron damage (mean of 16% damaged motoneurons in the anterior horn of all thoracic motor neurons) in the spinal cord. In the vehicle group, only one animal recovered partial neuronal function with regain of MEPs and link motions at each time point after deflating. All other animals completely lost neuronal functions. The intravenous application of sodium sulfide did not prevent neuronal cell injury and did not confer to functional recovery.

conclusionIn a porcine model of I/R injury of the spinal cord, treatment with intravenous sodium sulfide had no protective effect in animals with a pre-existing arteriosclerosis.

Indexed as

Aortic aneurysmHydrogen sulfideI/R injuryNeuro protectionUbiquitous arteriosclerosis

Identifiers

PMID30357563
PMCPMC6200829
OpenAlexW2898583513

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.