Influence of Anesthetic Regimes on Extracellular Vesicles following Remote Ischemic Preconditioning in Coronary Artery Disease.

Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) reduces ischemia-reperfusion injury in aortocoronary bypass surgery, potentially via extracellular vesicles (EVs) and their micro-RNA content. Clinical data implicate that propofol might inhibit the cardioprotective RIPC effect. This prospective, randomized study investigated the influence of different anesthetic regimes on RIPC efficacy and EV micro-RNA signatures. We also assessed the impact of propofol on cell protection after hypoxic conditioning and EV-mediated RIPC in vitro. H9c2 rat cardiomyoblasts were subjected to hypoxia, with or without propofol, and subsequent simulated ischemia-reperfusion injury. Apoptosis was measured by flow cytometry. Blood samples of 64 patients receiving anesthetic maintenance with propofol or isoflurane, along with RIPC or sham procedures, were analyzed, and EVs were enriched using a polymer-based method. Propofol administration corresponded with increased Troponin T levels (4669 ± 435.6 pg/mL), suggesting an inhibition of the cardioprotective RIPC effect. RIPC leads to a notable rise in miR-21 concentrations in the group receiving propofol anesthesia (fold change 7.22 ± 6.6). In vitro experiments showed that apoptosis reduction was compromised with propofol and only occurred in an EV-enriched preconditioning medium, not in an EV-depleted medium. Our study could clinically and experimentally confirm propofol inhibition of RIPC protection. Increased miR-21 expression could provide evidence for a possible inhibitory mechanism.

Pulsed field ablation and cryoballoon ablation for pulmonary vein isolation: insights on efficacy, safety and cardiac function.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) has become the cornerstone treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). While in cryoablation cell damage is caused by thermal effects, lately, pulsed field ablation (PFA) has been established as a novel non-thermal tissue-specific ablation modality for PVI. However, data comparing outcomes of patients undergoing either PFA or cryoballoon ablation (CBA) for primary PVI are sparse. METHODS: Consecutive patients with AF undergoing PVI by either CBA or PFA were included in the analysis. The primary outcome was the time to AF/AT recurrence. For secondary outcomes, clinical and periprocedural parameters were compared. RESULTS: In total, outcomes of 141 AF patients treated by PFA (94 patients) or CBA (47 patients) were compared. After 365 days, 70% of patients in the PFA group and 61% of patients in the CBA group were free from AF/AT (HR 1.35, 95% CI 0.60-3.00; p = 0.470). No deaths occurred. While symptoms alleviated in both groups, only after PFA, we observed significant improvement of left atrial volume index (PFA group baseline: 40 [31;62] ml/m2, PFA group follow-up: 35 [29;49] ml/m2; p = 0.015), NT-pro BNP levels (PFA group baseline: 1106 ± 2479 pg/ml, PFA group follow-up: 1033 ± 1742 pg/ml; p = 0.048), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (PFA group baseline: 55 [48;60] %, PFA group follow-up: 58 [54;63] %; p = 0.006). PVI by PFA was the only independent predictor of LVEF improvement. CONCLUSION: In our study, we show that CBA and PFA for PVI are of similar efficacy when it comes to AF recurrence. However, our findings suggest that PFA rather than CBA might induce left atrial reverse remodeling thereby contributing to left ventricular systolic function.