BACKGROUND: Timing and onset of myocardial ischemia are mostly unpredictable. Therefore, postconditioning could be an effective cardioprotective intervention. Because ischemic postconditioning is an invasive and not practicable treatment, pharmacological postconditioning would be a more suitable alternative cardioprotective measure. For the α2-adrenoreceptor agonist, dexmedetomidine postconditioning has been shown. However, data on a concentration-dependent effect of dexmedetomidine are lacking. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the time point and/or duration of dexmedetomidine administration in the reperfusion period is of relevance. We set out to determine whether infarct size reduction by dexmedetomidine is concentration dependent and whether time point and/or duration of dexmedetomidine application has an impact on the effect size of cardio protection. METHODS: Hearts of male Wistar rats were randomized and placed on a Langendorff system perfused with Krebs–Henseleit buffer at a constant pressure of 80 mm Hg. All hearts were subjected to 33 minutes of global ischemia and 60 minutes of reperfusion. In part I of the study, a concentration–response effect was determined by perfusing hearts with various concentrations of dexmedetomidine (0.3–100 nM) at the onset of reperfusion. Based on these results, part II of the study was conducted with 3 nM dexmedetomidine. Application of dexmedetomidine started directly at the onset of reperfusion (Dex60) and 15 minutes (Dex15), 30 minutes (Dex30), or 45 minutes (Dex45) after the start of reperfusion and lasted always until the end of the reperfusion period. Infarct size was determined by triphenyltetrazolium chloride staining. RESULTS: In part I, infarct size in control (Con) hearts was 62% ± 4%. Three-nanometer dexmedetomidine was the lowest most effective cardioprotective concentration and reduced infarct size to 24% ± 7% (P < .0001 versus Con). Higher concentrations did not confer stronger protection. Infarct size in control hearts from part II was 66% ± 6%. Different starting times and/or durations of application resulted in similar infarct size reduction (all P < .0001 versus Con). CONCLUSIONS: Postconditioning by dexmedetomidine is concentration dependent in ranges between 0.3 and 3 nM. Increased concentrations above 3 nM do not further enhance this cardioprotective effect. This cardioprotective effect is independent of time point and length of application in the reperfusion period.

Activation of melatonin receptors induces cardioprotection. Mitochondrial potassium channels (mKCa and mKATP) are involved in the signaling cascade of preconditioning. The melatonin receptor agonist ramelteon is an approved oral medication for treatment of insomnia, but nothing is known about possible cardioprotective properties. We investigated whether (1) ramelteon induces cardioprotection mediated by the melatonin receptor; (2) this effect is concentration-dependent; and (3) mKCa and/or mKATP channels are critically involved in ramelteon-induced cardioprotection. Hearts of male Wistar rats were randomized and placed on a Langendorff system, perfused with Krebs-Henseleit buffer at a constant pressure of 80 mm Hg. All hearts were subjected to 33 minutes of global ischemia and 60 minutes of reperfusion. Before, ischemic hearts were perfused with different concentrations of ramelteon (0.01-5 μM) for determination of a concentration-effect curve. In subsequent experiments, the lowest protective concentration of ramelteon was administered together with paxilline (mKCa channel inhibitor) and 5-hydroxydecanoate (mKATP channel inhibitor). To determine whether the reduction of ischemia and reperfusion injury by ramelteon is mediated by melatonin receptor, we combined ramelteon with luzindole, a melatonin receptor antagonist. Infarct size was determined by triphenyltetrazolium chloride staining. In control animals, infarct size was 58% ± 6%. Ramelteon in a concentration of 0.03 µM reduced infarct size to 28% ± 4% (P < 0.0001 vs. Con). A lower concentration of ramelteon did not initiate cardioprotection, and higher concentrations did not further decrease infarct size. Paxilline, 5-hydroxydecanoate, and luzindole completely blocked the ramelteon-induced cardioprotection. This study shows for the first time that (1) ramelteon induces cardioprotection through melatonin receptor; (2) the effect is not concentration-dependent; and (3) activation of mKCa and mKATP channels is involved.

Objectives: Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) is a practicable and noninvasive method to protect the heart against ischemia reperfusion injury. Unfortunately results from clinical studies are not convincing. Propofol is suggested to be an inhibiting factor of cardioprotection by RIPC, but the underlying mechanism is still unknown. We investigated whether after RIPC the release of humoral factors and/or the direct cardioprotective effect at the myocardium is inhibited by propofol. Design: Randomized, prospective, blinded laboratory investigation. Setting: Experimental laboratory. Patients/Subjects: Male Wistar rats. Interventions: Repetitive hind limb ischemia in rats—blood plasma transfers to isolated rat heart. Measurements and Main Results: In male Wistar rats (six groups, each n = 6/group), RIPC was induced by four cycles of 5 minutes bilateral hind limb ischemia alternately with 5 minutes of reperfusion. Blood samples were taken with (RIPC) and without RIPC (Con). Rats received continuous anesthesia with pentobarbital (Pento, 40 mg/kg body weight/hr) or propofol (Prop, 12 mg/kg body weight/hr), respectively. Cardioprotective properties of the blood plasma was investigated in the rat heart in vitro (six groups, each n = 6/group) perfused with Krebs-Henseleit buffer alone or with propofol (10 µM). Plasma was administered over 10 minutes before myocardial ischemia. All hearts underwent 33 minutes of global ischemia followed by 1 hour of reperfusion. At the end of the experiments, infarct size was determined by triphenyl-tetrazolium-chloride staining. RIPC plasma from pentobarbital anesthetized rats (Pento-RIPC) reduced infarct size from 64% (62–71%) (Pento-Con) to 34% (30–39%) (p < 0.0001). Infarct size with control plasma from propofol anesthetized rats was 59% (58–64%) (Prop-Con). RIPC plasma could not induce cardioprotection (Prop-RIPC: 63% [56–70%] ns vs Prop-Con). In contrast, RIPC plasma from pentobarbital anesthetized rats induced a significant infarct size reduction under propofol perfusion (Pento-RIPC: 34% [30–42%] vs Pento-Con: 54% [53–63%]; p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Loss of cardioprotection by RIPC during propofol anesthesia depends on inhibition of release of humoral factors.