A clinically relevant sheep model of orthotopic heart transplantation 24 h after donor brainstem death.
Brainstem death
Cardiovascular system
Cold static storage
Heart transplantation
Ischemia
Reperfusion
Systemic inflammation
Journal
Intensive care medicine experimental
ISSN: 2197-425X
Titre abrégé: Intensive Care Med Exp
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101645149
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Dec 2021
24 Dec 2021
Historique:
received:
28
07
2021
accepted:
23
11
2021
entrez:
24
12
2021
pubmed:
25
12
2021
medline:
25
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Heart transplantation (HTx) from brainstem dead (BSD) donors is the gold-standard therapy for severe/end-stage cardiac disease, but is limited by a global donor heart shortage. Consequently, innovative solutions to increase donor heart availability and utilisation are rapidly expanding. Clinically relevant preclinical models are essential for evaluating interventions for human translation, yet few exist that accurately mimic all key HTx components, incorporating injuries beginning in the donor, through to the recipient. To enable future assessment of novel perfusion technologies in our research program, we thus aimed to develop a clinically relevant sheep model of HTx following 24 h of donor BSD. BSD donors (vs. sham neurological injury, 4/group) were hemodynamically supported and monitored for 24 h, followed by heart preservation with cold static storage. Bicaval orthotopic HTx was performed in matched recipients, who were weaned from cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), and monitored for 6 h. Donor and recipient blood were assayed for inflammatory and cardiac injury markers, and cardiac function was assessed using echocardiography. Repeated measurements between the two different groups during the study observation period were assessed by mixed ANOVA for repeated measures. Brainstem death caused an immediate catecholaminergic hemodynamic response (mean arterial pressure, p = 0.09), systemic inflammation (IL-6 - p = 0.025, IL-8 - p = 0.002) and cardiac injury (cardiac troponin I, p = 0.048), requiring vasopressor support (vasopressor dependency index, VDI, p = 0.023), with normalisation of biomarkers and physiology over 24 h. All hearts were weaned from CPB and monitored for 6 h post-HTx, except one (sham) recipient that died 2 h post-HTx. Hemodynamic (VDI - p = 0.592, heart rate - p = 0.747) and metabolic (blood lactate, p = 0.546) parameters post-HTx were comparable between groups, despite the observed physiological perturbations that occurred during donor BSD. All p values denote interaction among groups and time in the ANOVA for repeated measures. We have successfully developed an ovine HTx model following 24 h of donor BSD. After 6 h of critical care management post-HTx, there were no differences between groups, despite evident hemodynamic perturbations, systemic inflammation, and cardiac injury observed during donor BSD. This preclinical model provides a platform for critical assessment of injury development pre- and post-HTx, and novel therapeutic evaluation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Heart transplantation (HTx) from brainstem dead (BSD) donors is the gold-standard therapy for severe/end-stage cardiac disease, but is limited by a global donor heart shortage. Consequently, innovative solutions to increase donor heart availability and utilisation are rapidly expanding. Clinically relevant preclinical models are essential for evaluating interventions for human translation, yet few exist that accurately mimic all key HTx components, incorporating injuries beginning in the donor, through to the recipient. To enable future assessment of novel perfusion technologies in our research program, we thus aimed to develop a clinically relevant sheep model of HTx following 24 h of donor BSD.
METHODS
METHODS
BSD donors (vs. sham neurological injury, 4/group) were hemodynamically supported and monitored for 24 h, followed by heart preservation with cold static storage. Bicaval orthotopic HTx was performed in matched recipients, who were weaned from cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), and monitored for 6 h. Donor and recipient blood were assayed for inflammatory and cardiac injury markers, and cardiac function was assessed using echocardiography. Repeated measurements between the two different groups during the study observation period were assessed by mixed ANOVA for repeated measures.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Brainstem death caused an immediate catecholaminergic hemodynamic response (mean arterial pressure, p = 0.09), systemic inflammation (IL-6 - p = 0.025, IL-8 - p = 0.002) and cardiac injury (cardiac troponin I, p = 0.048), requiring vasopressor support (vasopressor dependency index, VDI, p = 0.023), with normalisation of biomarkers and physiology over 24 h. All hearts were weaned from CPB and monitored for 6 h post-HTx, except one (sham) recipient that died 2 h post-HTx. Hemodynamic (VDI - p = 0.592, heart rate - p = 0.747) and metabolic (blood lactate, p = 0.546) parameters post-HTx were comparable between groups, despite the observed physiological perturbations that occurred during donor BSD. All p values denote interaction among groups and time in the ANOVA for repeated measures.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
We have successfully developed an ovine HTx model following 24 h of donor BSD. After 6 h of critical care management post-HTx, there were no differences between groups, despite evident hemodynamic perturbations, systemic inflammation, and cardiac injury observed during donor BSD. This preclinical model provides a platform for critical assessment of injury development pre- and post-HTx, and novel therapeutic evaluation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34950993
doi: 10.1186/s40635-021-00425-4
pii: 10.1186/s40635-021-00425-4
pmc: PMC8702587
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
60Subventions
Organisme : national health and medical research council
ID : GNT1145761
Organisme : prince charles hospital foundation
ID : RF-04
Organisme : department of health, queensland
ID : Bionics
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Trends Biotechnol. 2008 May;26(5):259-66
pubmed: 18353472
Am J Transplant. 2018 May;18(5):1262-1269
pubmed: 29377632
Int Heart J. 2018 Jan 27;59(1):81-86
pubmed: 29279533
Transplant Proc. 2013 Jan-Feb;45(1):33-7
pubmed: 23375272
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012 Dec;31(12):1293-300
pubmed: 23102910
Circulation. 2000 Jul 18;102(3):326-31
pubmed: 10899097
Circulation. 2013 Mar 26;127(12):1290-9
pubmed: 23443736
Eur J Heart Fail. 2017 Jun;19(6):728-738
pubmed: 28251755
Methods Mol Biol. 2006;333:331-74
pubmed: 16790859
Mayo Clin Proc. 2010 Feb;85(2):180-95
pubmed: 20118395
Am J Transplant. 2006 Dec;6(12):2903-11
pubmed: 17062004
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2006 May;29(5):760-6
pubmed: 16616855
Oncotarget. 2017 Sep 30;8(65):108692-108711
pubmed: 29312561
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996 Mar 1;27(3):633-41
pubmed: 8606275
Transplantation. 2020 Nov;104(11):2272-2289
pubmed: 32150037
Circ Res. 2009 Nov 20;105(11):1094-101
pubmed: 19815824
Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:468309
pubmed: 24783206
Shock. 2010 Apr;33(4):353-62
pubmed: 20407403
J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2013;52(3):290-4
pubmed: 23849412
Chest. 2000 Jun;117(6):1713-9
pubmed: 10858407
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2017 Oct;36(10):1037-1046
pubmed: 28779893
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005 Jul;130(1):187-93
pubmed: 15999061
Crit Care Med. 2008 Jun;36(6):1810-6
pubmed: 18496370
J Surg Res. 2013 Nov;185(1):152-8
pubmed: 23773712
Sci Rep. 2021 Oct 14;11(1):20458
pubmed: 34650063
Eur J Heart Fail. 2002 Mar;4(2):175-9
pubmed: 11959046
J Transplant. 2013;2013:521369
pubmed: 23691272
Cell Transplant. 2018 Oct;27(10):1417-1424
pubmed: 30235942
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018 Jun 1;53(6):1135-1143
pubmed: 29370400
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Aug 1;202(3):383-392
pubmed: 32293914
Ann Clin Biochem. 2013 Mar;50(Pt 2):147-55
pubmed: 23512172
Immunol Today. 1991 Mar;12(3):A49-53
pubmed: 1648926
Scand Cardiovasc J. 2016 Jun;50(3):193-200
pubmed: 26882241
Neurocrit Care. 2015 Aug;23(1):66-71
pubmed: 25561433
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011 Jul;26(7):2345-54
pubmed: 21127132
Transplantation. 2003 Nov 15;76(9):1275-9
pubmed: 14627902
Physiol Rep. 2021 Oct;9(19):e15048
pubmed: 34617676
Neurol Res. 2010 Sep;32(7):728-35
pubmed: 19682408
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 May 1;19(5):562-568
pubmed: 29053805
Transplantation. 2015 Jun;99(6):1216-9
pubmed: 25539461
Lancet. 2015 Jun 27;385(9987):2577-84
pubmed: 25888086
Pediatr Cardiol. 2018 Feb;39(2):324-328
pubmed: 29090350
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Apr 2;73(12):1447-1459
pubmed: 30922476
Vox Sang. 2014 Feb;106(2):153-60
pubmed: 23992472
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2001 Jan;163(1):259-65
pubmed: 11208654
Int J Artif Organs. 2009 Aug;32(8):496-506
pubmed: 19844891
Biomarkers. 2017 May - Jun;22(3-4):315-320
pubmed: 27788598
Transplantation. 2000 Nov 27;70(10):1498-506
pubmed: 11118097
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2017 Dec;36(12):1311-1318
pubmed: 29173394
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2009 Apr;53(4):425-35
pubmed: 19226294
Am J Transplant. 2017 Jul;17(7):1802-1812
pubmed: 28117941
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2011 Jun;12(6):938-42
pubmed: 21388983
Int J Clin Exp Med. 2011;4(4):258-64
pubmed: 22140597
Br J Pharmacol. 2010 Aug;160(7):1573-6
pubmed: 20649560
Pediatr Transplant. 2017 Sep;21(6):
pubmed: 28710785
Clin Chem. 2015 Jul;61(7):993-6
pubmed: 25931454
Am J Transplant. 2015 Feb;15(2):371-80
pubmed: 25612491
Intensive Care Med Exp. 2015 Dec;3(1):31
pubmed: 26596583
J Immunol Methods. 2020 Nov;486:112835
pubmed: 32828792
Eur J Heart Fail. 2016 Mar;18(3):290-7
pubmed: 26663359
Int J Cardiol. 2017 Aug 15;241:344-350
pubmed: 28284500
JAMA. 2009 Jun 17;301(23):2445-52
pubmed: 19531784
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2014 Apr;33(4):327-40
pubmed: 24661451