Search

BACKGROUND Despite an array of cardioprotective interventions identified in preclinical models of ischemia-reperfusion (IR) injury, successful clinical translation has not been achieved. This study investigated whether drugs routinely used in clinical anesthesia influence cardioprotective effectiveness by reducing effects of reactive oxygen species (ROS), upstream triggers of cardioprotective signaling. Effects of propofol, sevoflurane, or remifentanil were compared on postischemic functional recovery induced by ROS-mediated postconditioning with Intralipid. METHODS Recovery of left ventricular (LV) work, an index of IR injury, was measured in isolated Sprague-Dawley rat hearts subjected to global ischemia (20 minutes) and reperfusion (30 minutes). Hearts were either untreated or were treated with postconditioning with Intralipid (1%, throughout reperfusion). Propofol (10 μM), sevoflurane (2 vol%), remifentanil (3 nM), or combinations thereof were administered peri-ischemically (before and during IR). The effects of anesthetics on ROS production were measured in LV cardiac fibers by Amplex Red assay under phosphorylating and nonphosphorylating conditions. RESULTS Recovery of LV work (expressed as percentage of the preischemic value ± standard deviation) in untreated hearts was poor (20% ± 7%) and was improved by Intralipid postconditioning (58% ± 8%, P = .001). In the absence of Intralipid postconditioning, recovery of LV work was enhanced by propofol (28% ± 9%, P = .049), sevoflurane (49% ± 5%, P < .001), and remifentanil (51% ± 6%, P < .001). The benefit of Intralipid postconditioning was abolished by propofol (33% ± 10%, P < .001), but enhanced by sevoflurane (80% ± 7%, P < .001) or remifentanil (80% ± 9%, P < .001). ROS signaling in LV fibers was abolished by propofol, but unaffected by sevoflurane or remifentanil. We conclude that propofol abolishes ROS-mediated Intralipid postconditioning by acting as a ROS scavenger. Sevoflurane and remifentanil are protective per se and provide additive cardioprotection to ROS-mediated cardioprotection. CONCLUSIONS These divergent effects of routinely used drugs in clinical anesthesia may influence the translatability of cardioprotective therapies such as Intralipid postconditioning.

The IV anesthetic, propofol, when administered as fat emulsion-based formulation (Diprivan) promotes insulin resistance, but the direct effects of propofol and its solvent, Intralipid, on cardiac insulin resistance are unknown.Hearts of healthy and type-2 diabetic rats (generated by fructose feeding) were aerobically perfused for 60 minutes with 10 μM propofol in the formulation of Diprivan or an equivalent concentration of its solvent Intralipid (25 μM) ± insulin (100 mU•L). Glucose uptake, glycolysis, and glycogen metabolism were measured using [H]glucose. Activation of Akt, GSK3β, AMPK, ERK1/2, p38MAPK, S6K1, JNK, protein kinase Cθ (PKCθ), and protein kinase CCβII (PKCβII) was determined using immunoblotting. GLUT4 trafficking and phosphorylations of insulin receptor substrate-1 (IRS-1) at Ser307(h312), Ser1100(h1101), and Tyr608(hTyr612) were measured. Mass spectrometry was used to determine acylcarnitines, phospholipids, and sphingolipids.Diprivan and Intralipid reduced insulin-induced glucose uptake and redirected glucose to glycogen stores in diabetic hearts. Reduced glucose uptake was accompanied by lower GLUT4 trafficking to the sarcolemma. Diprivan and Intralipid inactivated GSK3β but activated AMPK and ERK1/2 in diabetic hearts. Only Diprivan increased phosphorylation of Akt(Ser473/Thr308) and translocated PKCθ and PKCβII to the sarcolemma in healthy hearts, whereas it activated S6K1 and p38MAPK and translocated PKCβII in diabetic hearts. Furthermore, only Diprivan phosphorylated IRS-1 at Ser1100(h1101) in healthy and diabetic hearts. JNK expression, phosphorylation of Ser307(h312) of IRS-1, and PKCθ expression and translocation were increased, whereas GLUT4 expression was reduced in insulin-treated diabetic hearts. Phosphatidylglycerol, phosphatidylethanolamine, and C18-sphingolipids accumulated in Diprivan-perfused and Intralipid-perfused diabetic hearts.Propofol and Intralipid promote insulin resistance predominantly in type-2 diabetic hearts.

Background There is a lack of studies investigating cardioprotection by common combinations of anesthetics. However, because a general anesthetic consists of a mixture of drugs with potentially interfering effects on signaling and cytoprotection, the most favorable combination should be used. Methods Working rat hearts were exposed to 20 min of ischemia and 30 min of reperfusion. Periischemic sevoflurane (2 vol-%), propofol (10 μM), or remifentanil (3 nM) (single treatments) and the three combinations thereof (combination treatments) were assessed for their ability to improve postischemic left ventricular work and to prevent intracellular Ca leak and overload. Beat-to-beat oscillations in intracellular [Ca] were measured using indo-1 AM. Phosphorylation of calcium/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase IIδ, ryanodine receptor-2, and phospholamban was determined. Results The single treatments with sevoflurane or remifentanil were highly protective with respect to functional recovery and Ca overload, but propofol, even at high concentrations, did not show similar protection. Sevoflurane combined with propofol completely lost its protection in the presence of low sedative propofol concentrations (≥1 μM), whereas remifentanil combined with propofol (10 μM) retained its protection. Propofol antagonism of sevoflurane protection was concentration-dependent and mimicked by the reactive oxygen species scavenger N-2-mercaptopropionyl-glycine. Addition of propofol to sevoflurane activated calcium/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase type IIδ and hyperphosphorylated the ryanodine receptor-2, consistent with causing a postischemic Ca leak from the sarcoplasmic reticulum. Remifentanil did not enhance sevoflurane protection. Conclusions The choice of anesthetic combination determines the postischemic Ca leak and intracellular overload. The results from these experiments will help to design studies for optimizing perioperative cardioprotection in high-risk surgical patients.

Background Two preconditioning stimuli should induce a more consistent overall cell protection. We hypothesized that remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC, second preconditioning stimulus) applied during isoflurane inhalation (first preconditioning stimulus) would provide more protection to the myocardium of patients undergoing on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Methods In this placebo-controlled randomized controlled study, patients in the RIPC group received four 5-min cycles of 300 mmHg cuff inflation/deflation of the leg before aortic cross-clamping. Anesthesia consisted of opioids and propofol for induction and isoflurane for maintenance. The primary outcome was high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T release. Secondary endpoints were plasma levels of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, S100 protein, and short- and long-term clinical outcomes. Gene expression profiles were obtained from atrial tissue using microarrays. Results RIPC (n = 27) did not reduce high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T release when compared with placebo (n = 28). Likewise, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, a marker of myocardial dysfunction; high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, a marker of perioperative inflammatory response; and S100, a marker of cerebral injury, were not different between the groups. The incidence for the perioperative composite endpoint combining new arrhythmias and myocardial infarctions was higher in the RIPC group than the placebo group (14/27 vs. 6/28, P = 0.036). However, there was no difference in the 6-month cardiovascular outcome. N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide release correlated with isoflurane-induced transcriptional changes in fatty-acid metabolism (P = 0.001) and DNA-damage signaling (P < 0.001), but not with RIPC-induced changes in gene expression. Conclusions RIPC applied during isoflurane inhalation provides no benefit to the myocardium of patients undergoing on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting.

Background Myocardial energy metabolism is a strong predictor of postoperative cardiac function. This study profiled the metabolites and metabolic changes in the myocardium exposed to sevoflurane, propofol, and Intralipid and investigated the underlying molecular mechanisms. Methods Sevoflurane (2 vol%) and propofol (10 and 100 microM) in the formulation of 1% Diprivan (AstraZeneca Inc., Mississauga, ON, Canada) were compared for their effects on oxidative energy metabolism and contractility in the isolated working rat heart model. Intralipid served as a control. Substrate flux through the major pathways for adenosine triphosphate generation in the heart, that is, fatty acid and glucose oxidation, was measured using [H]palmitate and [C]glucose. Biochemical analyses of nucleotides, acyl-CoAs, ceramides, and 32 acylcarnitine species were used to profile individual metabolites. Lipid rafts were isolated and used for Western blotting of the plasma membrane transporters CD36 and glucose transporter 4. Results Metabolic profiling of the hearts exposed to sevoflurane and propofol revealed distinct regulation of fatty acid and glucose oxidation. Sevoflurane selectively decreased fatty acid oxidation, which was closely related to a marked reduction in left ventricular work. In contrast, propofol at 100 microM but not 10 microM increased glucose oxidation without affecting cardiac work. Sevoflurane decreased fatty acid transporter CD36 in lipid rafts/caveolae, whereas high propofol increased pyruvate dehydrogenase activity without affecting glucose transporter 4, providing mechanisms for the fuel shifts in energy metabolism. Propofol increased ceramide formation, and Intralipid increased hydroxy acylcarnitine species. Conclusions Anesthetics and their solvents elicit distinct metabolic profiles in the myocardium, which may have clinical implications for the already jeopardized diseased heart.

BACKGROUND Adenosine possesses marked cardioprotective properties, but the mechanisms for this beneficial effect are unclear. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of adenosine given before ischemia or at reperfusion on mechanical function, glucose oxidation, glycolysis, and metabolite levels in isolated, paced (280 beats per minute) working rat hearts. METHODS AND RESULTS Hearts were perfused with Krebs-Henseleit buffer containing 11 mM glucose, 1.2 mM palmitate, and 500 microU.mL-1 insulin at an 11.5 mm Hg left atrial preload and 80 mm Hg aortic afterload. Adenosine (100 microM) pretreatment or adenosine (100 microM) at reperfusion markedly increased the recovery of mechanical function (from 44% to 81% and 96%, respectively) after 60 minutes of low-flow ischemia (coronary flow, 0.5 mL.min-1). Glucose oxidation (mumol.min-1 x g dry wt-1) was inhibited during ischemia (from 0.44 +/- 0.04 to 0.12 +/- 0.01), and this was not altered by adenosine (100 microM). During reperfusion, glucose oxidation recovered (to 0.38 +/- 0.02) and adenosine (100 microM), given at reperfusion, further increased glucose oxidation (to 0.52 +/- 0.06). The rate of glycolysis (mumol.min-1 x g dry wt-1), which was unaffected by ischemia per se, was inhibited by adenosine pretreatment (from 4.7 +/- 0.3 to 2.6 +/- 0.3). During reperfusion, glycolysis was also inhibited by adenosine relative to control (3.9 +/- 0.8) either when present during ischemia (2.6 +/- 0.6) or during reperfusion (1.4 +/- 0.4). These effects of adenosine on glucose metabolism reduced the calculated rate of H+ production attributable to glucose metabolism during the ischemic and reperfusion periods. Tissue lactate levels (mumol.g dry wt-1), which increased during ischemia (from 9.3 +/- 1.1 to 87.4 +/- 10.3) and then declined during reperfusion (to 26.2 +/- 3.7), were depressed further by adenosine pretreatment (to 19.7 +/- 4.1) and by adenosine at reperfusion (to 13.6 +/- 2.1). ATP levels (mumol.g dry wt-1), which were depressed by ischemia (from 18.1 +/- 1.1 to 10.6 +/- 1.3) and tended to be further depressed during reperfusion (to 7.1 +/- 0.7), were increased by adenosine pretreatment (to 14.1 +/- 1.2) and by adenosine at reperfusion (to 15.6 +/- 2.4). CONCLUSIONS The effects of adenosine on glucose metabolism that would tend to decrease cellular acidosis and hence, Ca2+ overload, may explain the beneficial effects of adenosine on mechanical function observed in these hearts during reperfusion after ischemia.

Propofol emulsion supports bacterial growth.Extrinsic contamination of propofol has been implicated as an etiological event in postsurgical infections. When added to propofol, local anesthetics (e.g., lidocaine) alleviate the pain associated with injecting it. Because local anesthetics have antimicrobial activity, we determined whether lidocaine would inhibit microbial growth by comparing the growth of four microorganisms in propofol and in mixtures of propofol and lidocaine. Known quanta of Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Candida albicans were inoculated into solutions of 1% propofol, 0.2% lidocaine in propofol, 0.5% lidocaine in propofol, 0.5% lidocaine in isotonic sodium chloride solution, and 0.9% isotonic sodium chloride solution. All microorganisms were taken from stock cultures and incubated for 24 h. Growth of microorganisms in each solution was compared by counting the number of colony-forming units grown from a subculture of the solution at 0, 3, 6, 12 and 24 h. Propofol supported the growth of E. coli and C. albicans. Propofol maintained static levels of S. aureus and was bactericidal toward P. aeruginosa. The addition of 0.2% and 0.5% lidocaine to propofol failed to prevent the growth of the studied microorganisms. The effect of 0.5% lidocaine in isotonic sodium chloride solution did not differ from the effects of isotonic sodium chloride solution alone. We conclude that lidocaine, when added to propofol in clinically acceptable concentrations, does not exhibit antimicrobial properties. Implications: Local anesthetics such as lidocaine have antimicrobial activity. Propofol supports the growth of bacteria responsible for infection. Bacteria were added to propofol and propofol mixed with lidocaine. The addition of lidocaine to propofol in clinically relevant concentrations did not prevent the growth of bacteria. The addition of lidocaine to propofol cannot prevent infection from contaminated propofol. (Anesth Analg 1999;88:209-12)