Role of adenosine A2A receptor in organ-specific vascular reactivity following hemorrhagic shock in rats

Background

Previous studies have demonstrated differences among organs in terms of shock-induced vascular reactivity and a role for adenosine A2A receptors (A2ARs) in protection against ischemia/reperfusion injury. However, the contributions of A2ARs to organ-specific vascular reactivity and the protection of vascular responsiveness following shock are currently unknown.

Methods

We investigated the role of A2ARs in different arteries, including the left femoral artery (LFA), thoracic aorta (TA), superior mesenteric artery (SMA), right renal artery (RRA), pulmonary artery (PA), and middle cerebral artery (MCA), in hemorrhagic-shock rats.

Results

The vascular reactivities of the LFA, SMA, RRA, and MCA increased slightly during early shock and then gradually decreased, whereas those of the PA and TA decreased from the start of shock. Different blood vessels lost vascular reactivity at different rates compared with controls; the LFA had the highest rate of loss (64.51%), followed by the SMA (44.69%), TA (36.06%), PA (37.83%), and RRA (32.33%), whereas the MCA had the lowest rate (18.45%). The rate of loss of vascular reactivity in the different vessels was negatively correlated with A2AR expression levels in normal and shock conditions. The highly selective A2AR agonist CGS 21680 significantly improved vascular reactivity, hemodynamic parameters, and animal survival, whereas the specific antagonist SCH58261 further decreased the shock-induced reduction in vascular reactivity and hemodynamic parameters.

Conclusions

A2ARs are involved in the regulation and protection of vascular reactivity following shock. A2AR activation may have a beneficial effect on hemorrhagic shock by improving vascular reactivity and hemodynamic parameters.     

Repeat percutaneous coronary revascularization: Indications and outcomes in a “Real World” cohort

Objectives : To investigate rates of and reasons for second and subsequent stent procedures in an unselected, “real‐world” population. Background : Repeat stenting is the primary difference reported in clinical trials of alternative revascularization strategies. The incidence, indication, and outcome for repeat stenting in contemporary practice outside the more selective populations of trials and registries has not been described. Method : All patients undergoing a first percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedure with stenting from January 2001 to August 2009 (10,509) from a large UK tertiary referral and district general hospital were identified. Mortality and the incidence, timing, and indication for repeat revascularization in this population were investigated from patient records. Results : Of 10,509 patients undergoing a first PCI and stent implant 23.5% underwent repeat angiography of which 11.2% required repeat PCI and 2% coronary artery bypass grafting (median follow‐up of 3.8 years). A total of 1.3% went on to a third PCI. The commonest indication for repeat stenting was disease progression remote from the original stent (46%) and planned staged PCI (23%); 21% had a stent‐related indication. Functional assessment before repeat stenting was used in one‐third of stable patients. Mortality was 2.5% per annum. Conclusions : In contemporary practice, patients undergoing a first stenting procedure have a low subsequent mortality, and the substantial majority (86.4%) requires no further revascularization over a median 3.8 year follow‐up. For those who do require repeat stenting, this is most commonly at a site remote from the first stent. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Safety of repetitive nerve stimulation in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices

Introduction: Pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are vulnerable to inappropriate sensing of electromagnetic interference (EMI), such as from nerve conduction studies. We conducted a prospective study to assess the safety of repetitive nerve stimulation (RNS). Methods: Fourteen patients undergoing insertion of 10 ICDs and 4 pacemakers under general anesthesia received RNS of the median, axillary, and spinal accessory nerves at 2 HZ and 50 HZ . We recorded detection of EMI and whether or not this resulted in an arrhythmia diagnosis or change in pacing output. Results: EMI was visible in 2 ICDs, without spurious tachyarrhythmia detection. EMI was observed in 3 of the 4 pacemakers, which led to pacing inhibition and a pause in 2, both of which were programmed to a unipolar sensing configuration. Conclusions: RNS is safe in patients with ICDs. In pacemaker patients, RNS appears safe during bipolar sensing, but caution is recommended in pacemaker patients with unipolar sensing. Muscle Nerve 47: 840–844, 2013