Secondary Ischemia Assessment in Murine and Rat Preclinical Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Models: A Systematic Review.
preclinical research
quality control
subarachnoid hemorrhage
translation
Journal
Journal of the American Heart Association
ISSN: 2047-9980
Titre abrégé: J Am Heart Assoc
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101580524
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 Mar 2024
05 Mar 2024
Historique:
medline:
11
3
2024
pubmed:
29
2
2024
entrez:
29
2
2024
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Delayed cerebral ischemia represents a significant contributor to death and disability following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Although preclinical models have shown promising results, clinical trials have consistently failed to replicate the success of therapeutic strategies. The lack of standardized experimental setups and outcome assessments, particularly regarding secondary vasospastic/ischemic events, may be partly responsible for the translational failure. The study aims to delineate the procedural characteristics and assessment modalities of secondary vasospastic and ischemic events, serving as surrogates for clinically relevant delayed cerebral ischemia, in recent rat and murine subarachnoid hemorrhage models. We conducted a systematic review of rat and murine in vivo subarachnoid hemorrhage studies (published: 2016-2020) using delayed cerebral ischemia/vasospasm as outcome parameters. Our analysis included 102 eligible studies. In murine studies (n=30), the endovascular perforation model was predominantly used, while rat studies primarily employed intracisternal blood injection to mimic subarachnoid hemorrhage. Particularly, the injection models exhibited considerable variation in injection volume, rate, and cerebrospinal fluid withdrawal. Peri-interventional monitoring was generally inadequately reported across all models, with body temperature and blood pressure being the most frequently documented parameters (62% and 34%, respectively). Vasospastic events were mainly assessed through microscopy of large cerebral arteries. In 90% of the rat and 86% of the murine studies, only male animals were used. Our study underscores the substantial heterogeneity in procedural characteristics and outcome assessments of experimental subarachnoid hemorrhage research. To address these challenges, drafting guidelines for standardization and ensuring rigorous control of methodological and experimental quality by funders and journals are essential. URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; Unique identifier: CRD42022337279.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Delayed cerebral ischemia represents a significant contributor to death and disability following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Although preclinical models have shown promising results, clinical trials have consistently failed to replicate the success of therapeutic strategies. The lack of standardized experimental setups and outcome assessments, particularly regarding secondary vasospastic/ischemic events, may be partly responsible for the translational failure. The study aims to delineate the procedural characteristics and assessment modalities of secondary vasospastic and ischemic events, serving as surrogates for clinically relevant delayed cerebral ischemia, in recent rat and murine subarachnoid hemorrhage models.
METHODS AND RESULTS
RESULTS
We conducted a systematic review of rat and murine in vivo subarachnoid hemorrhage studies (published: 2016-2020) using delayed cerebral ischemia/vasospasm as outcome parameters. Our analysis included 102 eligible studies. In murine studies (n=30), the endovascular perforation model was predominantly used, while rat studies primarily employed intracisternal blood injection to mimic subarachnoid hemorrhage. Particularly, the injection models exhibited considerable variation in injection volume, rate, and cerebrospinal fluid withdrawal. Peri-interventional monitoring was generally inadequately reported across all models, with body temperature and blood pressure being the most frequently documented parameters (62% and 34%, respectively). Vasospastic events were mainly assessed through microscopy of large cerebral arteries. In 90% of the rat and 86% of the murine studies, only male animals were used.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our study underscores the substantial heterogeneity in procedural characteristics and outcome assessments of experimental subarachnoid hemorrhage research. To address these challenges, drafting guidelines for standardization and ensuring rigorous control of methodological and experimental quality by funders and journals are essential.
REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; Unique identifier: CRD42022337279.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38420758
doi: 10.1161/JAHA.123.032694
pmc: PMC10944078
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e032694Références
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2007 Dec;78(12):1365-72
pubmed: 17470467
Transl Stroke Res. 2018 Sep 12;:
pubmed: 30209798
Lancet. 2008 May 10;371(9624):1612-23
pubmed: 18468545
Neuroscientist. 2021 Oct;27(5):463-472
pubmed: 32981451
Transl Stroke Res. 2021 Jun;12(3):428-446
pubmed: 33078345
Stroke. 2009 Jul;40(7):2594-600
pubmed: 19478212
Neurosurgery. 2003 Jan;52(1):165-75; discussion 175-6
pubmed: 12493115
Stroke. 2010 Oct;41(10):2391-5
pubmed: 20798370
Stroke. 2009 Jun;40(6):2244-50
pubmed: 19246690
Neurosurgery. 2002 Nov;51(5):1101-5; discussion 1105-7
pubmed: 12383354
Neurocrit Care. 2020 Feb;32(1):238-251
pubmed: 30671784
PLoS One. 2023 Jun 23;18(6):e0286504
pubmed: 37352248
Nat Methods. 2022 Nov;19(11):1334-1337
pubmed: 36064774
Neurosurgery. 2000 Feb;46(2):448-60; discussion 460-1
pubmed: 10690735
Lab Anim Sci. 1993 Jun;43(3):210-6
pubmed: 8355479
Elife. 2021 May 24;10:
pubmed: 34028353
Neurosurgery. 2016 Feb;78(2):256-64
pubmed: 26421590
Lancet. 2007 Oct 20;370(9596):1453-7
pubmed: 18064739
Nature. 2020 Feb;578(7793):142-148
pubmed: 31996853
Stroke. 2022 Feb;53(2):624-633
pubmed: 34983239
Stroke. 2016 Jan;47(1):e11-5
pubmed: 26337970
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021 Nov 15;8:752769
pubmed: 34869659
Stroke. 2020 Jul;51(7):2249-2254
pubmed: 32539672
Anesthesiology. 2009 Jul;111(1):209; author reply 209-10
pubmed: 19546703
Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2017 Oct 23;19(12):50
pubmed: 29063300
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2017 Nov;37(11):3488-3517
pubmed: 28797196
J Am Heart Assoc. 2021 Aug 3;10(15):e021845
pubmed: 34325514
Biomedicines. 2021 Jul 14;9(7):
pubmed: 34356884
Nature. 2010 Jun 10;465(7299):690
pubmed: 20535186
Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2018 Oct;23:143-149
pubmed: 30560152
Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2002 Dec;283(6):H2551-9
pubmed: 12427599
Stroke. 2009 Feb;40(2):e39; author reply e40
pubmed: 19074477
BMJ Open Sci. 2019 Jul 4;3(1):
pubmed: 35047678
Front Neurol. 2022 May 30;13:834003
pubmed: 35707032
Transl Stroke Res. 2020 Oct;11(5):1165-1170
pubmed: 32152960
Lancet Neurol. 2011 Jul;10(7):618-25
pubmed: 21640651
Front Neuroendocrinol. 2020 Jan;56:100817
pubmed: 31837339
PLoS Biol. 2020 Jul 14;18(7):e3000410
pubmed: 32663219
Stroke. 2020 Oct;51(10):3083-3094
pubmed: 32912097
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2011 Jan;35(3):565-72
pubmed: 20620164
Curr Biol. 2023 Apr 10;33(7):1358-1364.e4
pubmed: 36889318
J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Oct 20;9(20):e017477
pubmed: 33030094
Acta Neurochir Suppl. 2011;110(Pt 1):173-5
pubmed: 21116935
Br J Neurosurg. 2010 Aug;24(4):415-34
pubmed: 20726750
Lancet Neurol. 2021 Oct;20(10):795-820
pubmed: 34487721
J Neurosurg. 2022 Apr 01;137(6):1707-1717
pubmed: 35364589