ArticleNeuropediatrics2022
No Differences in Cerebral Immunohistochemical Markers following Remote Ischemic Postconditioning in Newborn Piglets with Hypoxia-Ischemia.
Article in Neuropediatrics, 2022. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite therapeutic hypothermia, neonates with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy still develop neurological disabilities. We have previously investigated neuroprotection by remote ischemic postconditioning (RIPC) in newborn piglets following hypoxia-ischemia (HI). The aim of this study was to further investigate potential effects of RIPC on cerebral immunohistochemical markers related to edema, apoptosis, and angiogenesis.
methodsBrain expression of aquaporin 4, caspase-3, B-cell lymphoma 2, and vascular endothelial growth factor was analyzed by immunohistochemistry in 23 piglets, randomly selected from a larger study of RIPC after HI. Twenty animals were subjected to 45 minutes of HI and randomized to treatment with and without RIPC, while three animals were randomized to sham procedures. RIPC was conducted by four conditioning cycles of 5-minute ischemia and reperfusion. Piglets were euthanized 72 hours after the HI insult.
resultsPiglets subjected to HI treated with and without RIPC were similar at baseline and following the HI insult. However, piglets randomized to HI alone had longer duration of low blood pressure during the insult. We found no differences in the brain expression of the immunohistochemical markers in any regions of interest or the whole brain between the two HI groups.
conclusionRIPC did not influence brain expression of markers related to edema, apoptosis, or angiogenesis in newborn piglets at 72 hours after HI. These results support previous findings of limited neuroprotective effect by this RIPC protocol. Our results may have been affected by the time of assessment, use of fentanyl as anesthetic, or limitations related to our immunohistochemical methods.
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.