Background: Many studies have confirmed that "in situ ischemia postconditioning" (ISPostC) and "remote ischemic postconditioning" (RIPostC) can reduce cerebral ischemia/reperfusion injury, but there is no comparison was made on the consistency of neuroprotection in ISPostC and RIPostC to different ischemic duration and number of cycles.
New method: We used a transient middle cerebral artery occlusion model to compare the neuroprotection of ISPostC and RIPostC. We conducted ISPostC and RIPostC via brief and repeated MCA and Femoral artery occlusion followed by different ischemic duration and number of cycles. Infarct volume, brain edema, Neurological deficit scores and Apoptosis were evaluated.
Results: First, the ISPostC with three cycles of 10-s occlusion/30-s release of both carotid arteries and the RIPostC with three cycles of 10-min occlusion/10-min release of the left and right femoral arteries can obviously reduce cerebral infarction size, brain edema, apoptosis, and improve behavioral deficits than other approaches. Second, three cycles of ischemia/reperfusion may be the best for RIPostC.
Comparison with existing method(s): In this paper, we compared different ischemic duration and frequency of ISPostC and RIPostC models to determine the best method. This conclusion helps to unify the experimental methods.
Conclusions: Different ischemic duration and frequency of ischemic postconditioning affect neuroprotection. three cycles of 10-s occlusion/30-s release of both carotid arteries and three cycles of 10-min occlusion/10-min release of both femoral arteries could be the first choice to study mechanisms of ischemic postconditioning and be conducive to the unification of research results.
Keywords: In situ ischemia postconditioning; Ischemia/reperfusion; Ischemic postconditioning; Neuroprotection; Remote ischemic postconditioning.
Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.