Cyclosporine A Plus Ischemic Postconditioning Improves Neurological Function in Rats After Cardiac Resuscitation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Attenuation of neuronal apoptosis helps maintain neurological function in patients after cardiac arrest. After ischemia-reperfusion, both cyclosporin A (CsA) and ischemic postconditioning independently protect mitochondria and thus reduce nerve injury. This study employed a rat model to evaluate the neuroprotective effect of combining ischemic postconditioning with CsA after cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). METHODS: Rats were apportioned equally to model control, postconditioned, CsA-treated, or CsA + postconditioned groups. Asphyxial cardiac arrest was imposed using modified Utstein-style guidelines. In the appropriate groups, postconditioning was implemented by ischemia and reperfusion (clamping and loosening the left femoral artery); CsA treatment was delivered with a single intravenous dose. Neurological deficits were scored at different times after CPR. Histological evaluation and electron microscopy were used to evaluate tissue damage, and TUNEL and flow cytometry were used to measure the apoptotic rate of hippocampal neurons and size of the mitochondrial permeability transition pore (mPTP) opening. RESULTS: The apoptotic rate was significantly lower in the postconditioned and CsA-treated groups compared with the model control and lowest in the CsA + postconditioned group. By histological evaluation and electron microscopy, the least damage was observed in the CsA + postconditioned group. The neurological deficit score of the CsA + postconditioned group was significantly higher than that of the CsA-treated group, but the size of the mPTP openings of these two groups was comparable. CONCLUSION: Ischemic postconditioning combined with CsA exerted a better neuroprotective effect after CPR than did either postconditioning or CsA alone. Inhibiting the opening of the mPTP is not the only neuroprotective mechanism.

Etomidate plus propofol versus propofol alone for sedation during gastroscopy: a randomized prospective clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Sedation with propofol alone during gastroscopy has many side effects. Etomidate has advantages in terms of circulation and respiration compared to propofol. We hypothesized that etomidate plus propofol during gastroscopy would be more safe and effective than propofol alone. METHODS: Four hundred (n = 400) patients were randomly divided into a propofol group (P group) and a etomidate plus propofol group (EP group). The P group was given the first dose of 1 % propofol 1 mg/kg before gastroscopy, and the EP group was given 1 % propofol 0.5 mg/kg plus etomidate 0.1 mg/kg. Repeated doses of 10-20 mg propofol or 5-10 mg propofol plus 1-2 mg etomidate were administered to maintain an adequate level of sedation. The sedation depth was maintained by bispectral index value of 40-60. RESULTS: The EP group had a lower incidence of systolic hypotension (13.0 vs. 32.5 %; P < 0.0001), bradycardia (8.5 vs. 16.5 %; P = 0.0226), mild hypoxemia (6.5 vs. 18.0 %; P = 0.0007), and severe hypoxemia (2.5 vs. 10.0 %; P = 0.0031) compared to the P group. Also, the satisfaction of anesthetist and gastroscopist with EP was higher than that of P group (P < 0.0001; P = 0.018, respectively). CONCLUSION: Etomidate plus propofol had few effects on respiration and circulation in patients undergoing gastroscopy and was more safe and effective than propofol alone.