2024/01/15 by Christine Kang, Ah-Reum Cho, Haekyu Kim +4 · 1 citation
Immunology and Microbiology · Medicine · Veterinary · #Immune Response and Inflammation #Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment #Veterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia
paper · doi:10.1016/j.mvr.2024.104655
openalex publication_date 2024/01/15 · crossref created 2024/01/15 · crossref issued 2024/05/01 · crossref published 2024/05/01 · crossref published-print 2024/05/01 · crossref deposited 2025/09/21 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · crossref indexed 2026/07/25 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28
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.