Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34169407›Full record

ArticleIntensive care medicine experimental2021

Preservation of renal endothelial integrity and reduction of renal edema by aprotinin does not preserve renal perfusion and function following experimental cardiopulmonary bypass.

Nicole A M Dekker, Anoek L I van Leeuwen, Matijs van Meurs, Jill Moser, Jeannette E Pankras, Nicole N van der Wel, Hans W Niessen, Marc G Vervloet, Alexander B A Vonk, Peter L Hordijk and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Intensive care medicine experimental, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 44% 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nicole A M DekkerDepartment of Anesthesiology, Experimental Laboratory for Vital Signs, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. n.dekker@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0300-3026
Anoek L I van LeeuwenDepartment of Anesthesiology, Experimental Laboratory for Vital Signs, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Matijs van MeursDepartment of Pathology and Medical Biology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Jill MoserDepartment of Pathology and Medical Biology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Jeannette E PankrasDepartment of Medical Biology, Electron Microscopy Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Nicole N van der WelDepartment of Medical Biology, Electron Microscopy Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hans W NiessenDepartment of Pathology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marc G VervloetDepartment of Nephrology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Alexander B A VonkDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Peter L HordijkDepartment of Physiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Christa BoerDepartment of Anesthesiology, Experimental Laboratory for Vital Signs, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Charissa E van den BromDepartment of Anesthesiology, Experimental Laboratory for Vital Signs, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NLAmsterdam Neuroscience · NL

Funding

CSL Behring Prof Heimburger Young Investigator GrantDutch Research Council Veni 2019European Society of Anaesthesiology Research Project Grant 2016European Society of Intensive Care Medicine Levi-Montalcini Award 2017Hartstichting 2016T064Nederlandse Vereniging Anesthesiologie Young Investigator Grant 2014Nederlandse Vereniging Anesthesiologie Young Investigator Grant 2017
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcute kidney injury is a severe complication following cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and is associated with capillary leakage and microcirculatory perfusion disturbances. CPB-induced thrombin release results in capillary hyperpermeability via activation of protease-activated receptor 1 (PAR1). We investigated whether aprotinin, which is thought to prevent thrombin from activating PAR1, preserves renal endothelial structure, reduces renal edema and preserves renal perfusion and reduces renal injury following CPB.

methodsRats were subjected to CPB after treatment with 33.000 KIU/kg aprotinin (n = 15) or PBS (n = 15) as control. A secondary dose of 33.000 KIU/kg aprotinin was given 60 min after initiation of CPB. Cremaster and renal microcirculatory perfusion were assessed using intravital microscopy and contrast echography before CPB and 10 and 60 min after weaning from CPB. Renal edema was determined by wet/dry weight ratio and renal endothelial structure by electron microscopy. Renal PAR1 gene and protein expression and markers of renal injury were determined.

resultsCPB reduced cremaster microcirculatory perfusion by 2.5-fold (15 (10-16) to 6 (2-10) perfused microvessels, p < 0.0001) and renal perfusion by 1.6-fold (202 (67-599) to 129 (31-292) au/sec, p = 0.03) in control animals. Both did not restore 60 min post-CPB. This was paralleled by increased plasma creatinine (p < 0.01), neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL; p = 0.003) and kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1; p < 0.01). Aprotinin treatment preserved cremaster microcirculatory perfusion following CPB (12 (7-15) vs. 6 (2-10) perfused microvessels, p = 0.002), but not renal perfusion (96 (35-313) vs. 129 (31-292) au/s, p > 0.9) compared to untreated rats. Aprotinin treatment reduced endothelial gap formation (0.5 ± 0.5 vs. 3.1 ± 1.4 gaps, p < 0.0001), kidney wet/dry weight ratio (4.6 ± 0.2 vs. 4.4 ± 0.2, p = 0.046), and fluid requirements (3.9 ± 3.3 vs. 7.5 ± 3.0 ml, p = 0.006) compared to untreated rats. In addition, aprotinin treatment reduced tubulointerstitial neutrophil influx by 1.7-fold compared to untreated rats (30.7 ± 22.1 vs. 53.2 ± 17.2 neutrophil influx/section, p = 0.009). No differences were observed in renal PAR1 expression and plasma creatinine, NGAL or KIM-1 between groups.

conclusionsAprotinin did not improve renal perfusion nor reduce renal injury during the first hour following experimental CPB despite preservation of renal endothelial integrity and reduction of renal edema.

Indexed as

Acute kidney injuryCapillary permeabilityCardiopulmonary bypassEdemaMicrocirculationRenal perfusion

Identifiers

PMID34169407
PMCPMC8225734
OpenAlexW3175792705

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.