Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:47:04.272Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of sevoflurane preconditioning on ischaemia/reperfusion injury in the rat kidney in vivo

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2006

D. Obal ,
S. Dettwiler ,
C. Favoccia ,
K. Rascher ,
B. Preckel  and
W. Schlack
D. Obal
Affiliation:
University Hospital Duesseldorf, Department of Anaesthesiology, Duesseldorf, Germany
S. Dettwiler
Affiliation:
University Hospital Duesseldorf, Department of Anaesthesiology, Duesseldorf, Germany
C. Favoccia
Affiliation:
University Hospital Duesseldorf, Department of Anaesthesiology, Duesseldorf, Germany
K. Rascher
Affiliation:
Heinrich-Heine University, Department of Anatomy II, Duesseldorf, Germany
B. Preckel
Affiliation:
University Hospital Duesseldorf, Department of Anaesthesiology, Duesseldorf, Germany
W. Schlack
Affiliation:
University Hospital Duesseldorf, Department of Anaesthesiology, Duesseldorf, Germany
Get access

Extract

Summary

Background and objective: Whereas the protective effect of anaesthetic and ischaemic preconditioning has been described for several organs, it is uncertain whether this mechanism is also effective in the kidney. We compared the effect of preconditioning with sevoflurane and preconditioning with short episodes of ischaemia on renal ischaemia/reperfusion injury in the rat in vivo. Methods: Fourteen days after right-sided nephrectomy, anaesthetized male Wistar rats were randomly assigned to a sham-operated group (no arterial occlusion, n = 5) or underwent 45 min of left renal artery occlusion (control group, n = 9) followed by 3 days of reperfusion. Two further experimental groups of animals were preconditioned prior to ischaemia either by administering 1 MAC sevoflurane for 15 min followed by 10 min of washout (sevoflurane group, n = 10) or by subjecting the animals to three short episodes of renal ischaemia (ischaemia-preconditioned group, n = 8). Blood creatinine was measured during reperfusion and morphological damage was assessed by histological examination. Results: Baseline creatinine values were similar in all four groups (0.7 ± 0.2 mg dL−1; mean ± SD) and remained unchanged in the sham-operated animals after 3 days (0.8 ± 0.2 mg dL−1). Creatinine levels increased in the ischaemic preconditioning group (3.3 ± 1.2 mg dL−1) and sevoflurane preconditioning group (4.0 ± 1.1 mg dL−1) compared to the control group (1.6 ± 0.6 mg dL−1). Morphological damage was less severe in the control group, i.e. in animals without preconditioning, than in both preconditioning groups. Conclusion: Neither sevoflurane nor ischaemic preconditioning preserves renal function or attenuates cell damage in the rat in vivo.

Keywords

REPERFUSION INJURYRATANAESTHETICS INHALATIONAL, sevoflurane, preconditioningKIDNEY
Type
Original Article
Information
European Journal of Anaesthesiology , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , April 2006 , pp. 319 - 326
Copyright
© 2006 European Society of Anaesthesiology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abernethy VE, Lieberthal W. Acute renal failure in the critically ill patient. Crit Care Clin 2002; 18: 203–222.Google Scholar
Kashyap VS, Cambria RP, Davison JK, L'Italien GJ. Renal failure after thoracoabdominal aortic surgery. J Vasc Surg 1997; 26: 949–955.Google Scholar
Cromheecke S, Meeus R, Nelis A et al. Preservation of myocardial function after coronary surgery with sevoflurane anesthesia: is timing of administration involved? Eur J Anaesthesiol 2004; 21: 49.Google Scholar
De Hert SG, ten Broecke PW, Mertens E et al. Sevoflurane but not propofol preserves myocardial function in coronary surgery patients. Anesthesiology 2002; 97: 42–49.Google Scholar
Belhomme D, Peynet J, Louzy M, Launay JM, Kitakaze M, Menasche P. Evidence for preconditioning by isoflurane in coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Circulation 1999; 100: II340–II344.Google Scholar
Bernaudin M, Tang Y, Reilly M, Petit E, Sharp FR. Brain genomic response following hypoxia and re-oxygenation in the neonatal rat. Identification of genes that might contribute to hypoxia-induced ischemic tolerance. J Biol Chem 2002; 277: 39 728–39 738.Google Scholar
Koti RS, Seifalian AM, Davidson BR. Protection of the liver by ischemic preconditioning: a review of mechanisms and clinical applications. Dig Surg 2003; 20: 383–396.Google Scholar
Xiong L, Zheng Y, Wu M et al. Preconditioning with isoflurane produces dose-dependent neuroprotection via activation of adenosine triphosphate-regulated potassium channels after focal cerebral ischemia in rats. Anesth Analg 2003; 96: 233–237.Google Scholar
Toosy N, McMorris EL, Grace PA, Mathie RT. Ischaemic preconditioning protects the rat kidney from reperfusion injury. BJU Int 1999; 84: 489–494.Google Scholar
Lee HT, Emala CW. Protein kinase C and G(i/o) proteins are involved in adenosine- and ischemic preconditioning-mediated renal protection. J Am Soc Nephrol 2001; 12: 233–240.Google Scholar
Lee HT, Gallos G, Nasr SH, Emala CW. A1 adenosine receptor activation inhibits inflammation, necrosis, and apoptosis after renal ischemia–reperfusion injury in mice. J Am Soc Nephrol 2004; 15: 102–111.Google Scholar
Behrends M, Walz MK, Kribben A et al. No protection of the porcine kidney by ischaemic preconditioning. Exp Physiol 2000; 85: 819–827.Google Scholar
Lee HT, Krichevsky IE, Xu H, Ota-Setlik A, D'Agati VD, Emala CW. Local anesthetics worsen renal function after ischemia-reperfusion injury in rats. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 2004; 286: F111–F119.Google Scholar
Lee HT, Ota-Setlik A, Fu Y, Nasr SH, Emala CW. Differential protective effects of volatile anesthetics against renal ischemia-reperfusion injury in vivo. Anesthesiology 2004; 101: 1313–1324.Google Scholar
Yamashita J, Ogata M, Itoh M et al. Role of nitric oxide in the renal protective effects of ischemic preconditioning. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 2003; 42: 419–427.Google Scholar
Rampil IJ, Laster MJ, Eger EI. Antagonism of the 5-HT(3) receptor does not alter isoflurane MAC in rats. Anesthesiology 2001; 95: 562–564.Google Scholar
Jablonski P, Howden BO, Rae DA, Birrell CS, Marshall VC, Tange J. An experimental model for assessment of renal recovery from warm ischemia. Transplantation 1983; 35: 198–204.Google Scholar
Kato R, Foex P. Myocardial protection by anesthetic agents against ischemia-reperfusion injury: an update for anesthesiologists. Can J Anaesth 2002; 49: 777–791.Google Scholar
Kevin LG, Katz P, Camara AK, Novalija E, Riess ML, Stowe DF. Anesthetic preconditioning: effects on latency to ischemic injury in isolated hearts. Anesthesiology 2003; 99: 385–391.Google Scholar
Riess ML, Kevin LG, Amadou C, Heisner JS, Stowe DF. Dual exposure to sevoflurane improves anesthetic preconditioning in intact hearts. Anesthesiology 2004; 100: 569–574.Google Scholar
Shanley PF, Rosen MD, Brezis M, Silva P, Epstein FH, Rosen S. Topography of focal proximal tubular necrosis after ischemia with reflow in the rat kidney. Am J Pathol 1986; 122: 462–468.Google Scholar
Müllenheim J, Fräβdorf J, Preckel B, Thämer V, Schlack W. Ketamine, but not S-ketamine, blocks ischemic preconditioning in rabbit hearts in vivo. Anesthesiology 2001; 94: 630–636.Google Scholar
Gobe G, Willgoss D, Hogg N, Schoch E, Endre Z. Cell survival or death in renal tubular epithelium after ischemia-reperfusion injury. Kidney Int 1999; 56: 1299–1304.Google Scholar
Glaumann B, Glaumann H, Berezesky IK, Trump BF. Studies on the pathogenesis of ischemic cell injury. II. Morphological changes of the pars convoluta (P1 and P2) of the proximal tubule of the rat kidney made ischemic in vivo. Virchows Arch B Cell Pathol 1975; 19: 281–302.Google Scholar
Duffield JS, Park KM, Hsiao LL et al. Restoration of tubular epithelial cells during repair of the postischemic kidney occurs independently of bone marrow-derived stem cells. J Clin Invest 2005; 115: 1743–1755.Google Scholar
Fujii T, Takaoka M, Tsuruoka N, Kiso Y, Tanaka T, Matsumura Y. Dietary supplementation of l-carnosine prevents ischemia/reperfusion-induced renal injury in rats. Biol Pharm Bull 2005; 28: 361–363.Google Scholar
Islam CF, Mathie RT, Dinneen MD, Kiely EA, Peters AM, Grace PA. Ischaemia-reperfusion injury in the rat kidney: The effect of preconditioning. Brit J Urol 1997; 79: 842–847.Google Scholar
Park KM, Kim JI, Ahn Y, Bonventre AJ, Bonventre JV. Testosterone is responsible for enhanced susceptibility of males to ischemic renal injury. J Biol Chem 2004; 279: 52 282–52 292.Google Scholar
Kharasch ED, Thummel KE. Identification of cytochrome P450 2E1 as the predominant enzyme catalyzing human liver microsomal defluorination of sevoflurane, isoflurane, and methoxyflurane. Anesthesiology 1993; 79: 795–807.Google Scholar
Lochhead KM, Kharasch ED, Zager RA. Spectrum and subcellular determinants of fluorinated anesthetic-mediated proximal tubular injury. Am J Pathol 1997; 150: 2209–2221.Google Scholar
Kharasch ED, Frink Jr EJ, Zager R, Bowdle TA, Artru A, Nogami WM. Assessment of low-flow sevoflurane and isoflurane effects on renal function using sensitive markers of tubular toxicity. Anesthesiology 1997; 86: 1238–1253.Google Scholar
Cook TL, Beppu WJ, Hitt BA, Kosek JC, Mazze RI. Renal effects and metabolism of sevoflurane in Fisher 344 rats: an in-vivo and in-vitro comparison with methoxyflurane. Anesthesiology 1975; 43: 70–77.Google Scholar
Kharasch ED, Thorning D, Garton K, Hankins DC, Kilty CG. Role of renal cysteine conjugate beta-lyase in the mechanism of compound A nephrotoxicity in rats. Anesthesiology 1997; 86: 160–171.Google Scholar
Conzen PF, Kharasch ED, Czerner SFA, Artru AA, Reichle FM, Michalowski P et al. Low-flow sevoflurane compared with low-flow isoflurane anesthesia in patients with stable renal insufficiency. Anesthesiology 2002; 97: 578–584.Google Scholar
Mazze RI, Callan CM, Galvez ST, Delgado-Herrera L, Mayer DB. The effects of sevoflurane on serum creatinine and blood urea nitrogen concentrations: a retrospective, twenty-two-center, comparative evaluation of renal function in adult surgical patients. Anesth Analg 2000; 90: 683–688.Google Scholar
Ebert TJ, Frink Jr EJ, Kharasch ED. Absence of biochemical evidence for renal and hepatic dysfunction after 8 h of 1.25 minimum alveolar concentration sevoflurane anesthesia in volunteers. Anesthesiology 1998; 88: 601–610.Google Scholar
Bito H, Ikeuchi Y, Ikeda K. Effects of low-flow sevoflurane anesthesia on renal function: comparison with high-flow sevoflurane anesthesia and low-flow isoflurane anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1997; 86: 1231–1237.Google Scholar
Obal D, Preckel B, Scharbatke H et al. One MAC of sevoflurane provides protection against reperfusion injury in the rat heart in vivo. Br J Anaesth 2001; 87: 905–911.Google Scholar
Obal D, Scharbatke H, Barthel H, Preckel B, Müllenheim J, Schlack W. Cardioprotection against reperfusion injury is maximal with only two minutes of sevoflurane administration in rats. Can J Anesth 2003; 50: 940–945.Google Scholar
Julier K, Da Silva R, Gracia C et al. Preconditioning by sevoflurane decreases biochemical markers for myocardial and renal dysfunction in coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a double-blinded, placebo-controlled, multicenter study. Anesthesiology 2003; 98: 1315–132.Google Scholar