Sedation with propofol and isoflurane differs in terms of microcirculatory parameters: A randomized animal study using dorsal skinfold chamber mouse model.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read More Add to Saved list
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: Academic Press Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 0165035 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1095-9319 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 00262862 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Microvasc Res Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Original Publication: New York, Academic Press.
    • Subject Terms:
      Propofol*/pharmacology ; Isoflurane*/pharmacology ; Anesthetics, Inhalation*/pharmacology ; Sepsis*/drug therapy; Animals ; Mice ; Microcirculation ; Syndecan-1 ; Anesthetics, Intravenous/pharmacology
    • Abstract:
      Objective: This study aimed to explore the effects of sedative doses of propofol and isoflurane on microcirculation in septic mice compared to controls. Isoflurane, known for its potential as a sedation drug in bedside applications, lacks clarity regarding its impact on the microcirculation system. The hypothesis was that propofol would exert a more pronounced influence on the microvascular flow index, particularly amplified in septic conditions.
      Material and Methods: Randomized study was conducted from December 2020 to October 2021 involved 60 BALB/c mice, with 52 mice analyzed. Dorsal skinfold chambers were implanted, followed by intraperitoneal injections of either sterile 0.9 % saline or lipopolysaccharide for the control and sepsis groups, respectively. Both groups received propofol or isoflurane treatment for 120 min. Microcirculatory parameters were obtained via incident dark-field microscopy videos, along with the mean blood pressure and heart rate at three time points: before sedation (T0), 30 min after sedation (T30), and 120 min after sedation (T120). Endothelial glycocalyx thickness and syndecan-1 concentration were also analyzed.
      Results: In healthy controls, both anesthetics reduced blood pressure. However, propofol maintained microvascular flow, differing significantly from isoflurane at T120 (propofol, 2.8 ± 0.3 vs. isoflurane, 1.6 ± 0.9; P < 0.001). In the sepsis group, a similar pattern occurred at T120 without statistical significance (propofol, 1.8 ± 1.1 vs. isoflurane, 1.2 ± 0.7; P = 0.023). Syndecan-1 levels did not differ between agents, but glycocalyx thickness index was significantly lower in the isoflurane-sepsis group than propofol (P = 0.001).
      Conclusions: Propofol potentially offers protective action against microvascular flow deterioration compared to isoflurane, observed in control mice. Furthermore, a lower degree of sepsis-induced glycocalyx degradation was evident with propofol compared to isoflurane.
      Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
      (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
    • Contributed Indexing:
      Keywords: Endothelial glycocalyx; Isoflurane; Microcirculation; Propofol; Sepsis
    • Accession Number:
      YI7VU623SF (Propofol)
      CYS9AKD70P (Isoflurane)
      0 (Syndecan-1)
      0 (Anesthetics, Inhalation)
      0 (Anesthetics, Intravenous)
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20240117 Date Completed: 20240318 Latest Revision: 20240705
    • Publication Date:
      20240705
    • Accession Number:
      10.1016/j.mvr.2024.104655
    • Accession Number:
      38232898