ArticlePloS one2020
Effluent from ischemic preconditioned hearts confers cardioprotection independent of the number of preconditioning cycles.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Immune Modulation as a Key Mechanism for the Protective Effects of Remote Ischemic Conditioning After Stroke.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary effluent collected from ischemic preconditioning (IPC) treated hearts induces myocardial protection in non-ischemic-preconditioned hearts. So far, little is known about the number of IPC cycles required for the release of cardioprotective factors into the coronary effluent to successfully induce cardioprotection. This study investigated the cardioprotective potency of effluent obtained after various IPC cycles in the rat heart. Experiments were performed on isolated hearts of male Wistar rats, mounted onto a Langendorff system and perfused with Krebs-Henseleit buffer. In a first part, effluent was taken before (Con) and after each IPC cycle (Eff 1, Eff 2, Eff 3). IPC was induced by 3 cycles of 5 min of global myocardial ischemia followed by 5 minutes of reperfusion. In a second part, hearts of male Wistar rats were randomized to four groups (each group n = 4-5) and underwent 33 min of global ischemia followed by 60 min of reperfusion. The previously obtained coronary effluent was administered for 10 minutes before ischemia as a preconditioning stimulus. Infarct size was determined at the end of reperfusion by triphenyltetrazoliumchloride (TTC) staining. Infarct size with control effluent was 54±12%. Effluent obtained after IPC confers a strong infarct size reduction independent of the number of IPC cycles (Eff 1: 27±5%; Eff 2: 35±7%; Eff 3: 35±8%, each P<0.05 vs. Con). Effluent extracted after one cycle IPC is comparably protective as after two or three cycles IPC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.