Luminal Preservation Protects the Small Intestine in a Brain-dead Rat Model
Background. Intestinal transplantation depends on donation after brain death (DBD). Luminal preservation (LP) has been beneficial against preservation injury in previous studies in animal models, but none include DBD. This study aims to investigate whether these benefits occur also with DBD. Methods...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wolters Kluwer
2022-10-01
|
| Series: | Transplantation Direct |
| Online Access: | http://journals.lww.com/transplantationdirect/fulltext/10.1097/TXD.0000000000001378 |
| _version_ | 1811192341060386816 |
|---|---|
| author | Guido Trentadue, MD, PhD Leandro Vecchio, MV, PhD Gursah Kats-Ugurlu, MD, PhD Julieta Vernengo, MSc Jan Willem Haveman, MD, PhD Ivana Ivanoff, MSc Klaas Nico Faber, PhD Martín Rumbo, PhD Gerard Dijkstra, MD, PhD |
| author_facet | Guido Trentadue, MD, PhD Leandro Vecchio, MV, PhD Gursah Kats-Ugurlu, MD, PhD Julieta Vernengo, MSc Jan Willem Haveman, MD, PhD Ivana Ivanoff, MSc Klaas Nico Faber, PhD Martín Rumbo, PhD Gerard Dijkstra, MD, PhD |
| author_sort | Guido Trentadue, MD, PhD |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background. Intestinal transplantation depends on donation after brain death (DBD). Luminal preservation (LP) has been beneficial against preservation injury in previous studies in animal models, but none include DBD. This study aims to investigate whether these benefits occur also with DBD.
Methods. Wistar rats (male, N = 9) underwent brain death for 2 h. Thereafter, vascular perfusion was done with University of Wisconsin solution (UW). The small intestine was then explanted and randomized into 3 groups: control (empty segment), LP+PEG (with polyethylene glycol 3350 solution), or LP+UW (with UW), treated and tied shut. Ice-cold UW was used for cold storage. Samples were taken at procurement and after 4 (t = 4) and 8 h (t = 8) of preservation. Histopathological scorings were performed for intestinal preservation injury, subepithelial space, absence of epithelial lining, and hemeoxygenase-1 expression.
Results. There was low-level mucosal injury (median intestinal preservation injury score 2) at procurement. At t = 4, bowels treated without LP had more damage than LP-treated samples (control score 4, LP+PEG 2 and LP+UW 2, P < 0.001 control versus LP+UW). At t = 8, no benefit of LP was observed (control 2, LP+PEG 3, LP+UW 2). Subepithelial space increased with time and the presence of LP; epithelial lining was better conserved in LP-treated samples. Hemeoxygenase-1 staining showed increased intensity with increased damage, irrespective of treatment.
Conclusions. Luminal perfusion of the small intestine with UW or PEG protects the mucosa in brain-dead rats for up to 4 h. Fewer benefits of LP were found than previously described in non-DBD models. To mimic the clinical situation, DBD should be included in future animal studies on intestinal preservation. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-11T23:51:07Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-7119205c7dd54123834816dc7f11ebbe |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2373-8731 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-11T23:51:07Z |
| publishDate | 2022-10-01 |
| publisher | Wolters Kluwer |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Transplantation Direct |
| spelling | doaj.art-7119205c7dd54123834816dc7f11ebbe2022-12-22T03:56:29ZengWolters KluwerTransplantation Direct2373-87312022-10-01810e137810.1097/TXD.0000000000001378202210000-00015Luminal Preservation Protects the Small Intestine in a Brain-dead Rat ModelGuido Trentadue, MD, PhD0Leandro Vecchio, MV, PhD1Gursah Kats-Ugurlu, MD, PhD2Julieta Vernengo, MSc3Jan Willem Haveman, MD, PhD4Ivana Ivanoff, MSc5Klaas Nico Faber, PhD6Martín Rumbo, PhD7Gerard Dijkstra, MD, PhD81 Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen. Groningen, The Netherlands.3 Institute of Physiopathological Immunological Studies, Laboratory of Organ and Tissue Transplant, National University of La Plata. La Plata, Argentina.4 Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen. Groningen, The Netherlands.3 Institute of Physiopathological Immunological Studies, Laboratory of Organ and Tissue Transplant, National University of La Plata. La Plata, Argentina.5 Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen. Groningen, The Netherlands.3 Institute of Physiopathological Immunological Studies, Laboratory of Organ and Tissue Transplant, National University of La Plata. La Plata, Argentina.6 Department of Laboratory Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen. Groningen, The Netherlands.3 Institute of Physiopathological Immunological Studies, Laboratory of Organ and Tissue Transplant, National University of La Plata. La Plata, Argentina.1 Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen. Groningen, The Netherlands.Background. Intestinal transplantation depends on donation after brain death (DBD). Luminal preservation (LP) has been beneficial against preservation injury in previous studies in animal models, but none include DBD. This study aims to investigate whether these benefits occur also with DBD. Methods. Wistar rats (male, N = 9) underwent brain death for 2 h. Thereafter, vascular perfusion was done with University of Wisconsin solution (UW). The small intestine was then explanted and randomized into 3 groups: control (empty segment), LP+PEG (with polyethylene glycol 3350 solution), or LP+UW (with UW), treated and tied shut. Ice-cold UW was used for cold storage. Samples were taken at procurement and after 4 (t = 4) and 8 h (t = 8) of preservation. Histopathological scorings were performed for intestinal preservation injury, subepithelial space, absence of epithelial lining, and hemeoxygenase-1 expression. Results. There was low-level mucosal injury (median intestinal preservation injury score 2) at procurement. At t = 4, bowels treated without LP had more damage than LP-treated samples (control score 4, LP+PEG 2 and LP+UW 2, P < 0.001 control versus LP+UW). At t = 8, no benefit of LP was observed (control 2, LP+PEG 3, LP+UW 2). Subepithelial space increased with time and the presence of LP; epithelial lining was better conserved in LP-treated samples. Hemeoxygenase-1 staining showed increased intensity with increased damage, irrespective of treatment. Conclusions. Luminal perfusion of the small intestine with UW or PEG protects the mucosa in brain-dead rats for up to 4 h. Fewer benefits of LP were found than previously described in non-DBD models. To mimic the clinical situation, DBD should be included in future animal studies on intestinal preservation.http://journals.lww.com/transplantationdirect/fulltext/10.1097/TXD.0000000000001378 |
| spellingShingle | Guido Trentadue, MD, PhD Leandro Vecchio, MV, PhD Gursah Kats-Ugurlu, MD, PhD Julieta Vernengo, MSc Jan Willem Haveman, MD, PhD Ivana Ivanoff, MSc Klaas Nico Faber, PhD Martín Rumbo, PhD Gerard Dijkstra, MD, PhD Luminal Preservation Protects the Small Intestine in a Brain-dead Rat Model Transplantation Direct |
| title | Luminal Preservation Protects the Small Intestine in a Brain-dead Rat Model |
| title_full | Luminal Preservation Protects the Small Intestine in a Brain-dead Rat Model |
| title_fullStr | Luminal Preservation Protects the Small Intestine in a Brain-dead Rat Model |
| title_full_unstemmed | Luminal Preservation Protects the Small Intestine in a Brain-dead Rat Model |
| title_short | Luminal Preservation Protects the Small Intestine in a Brain-dead Rat Model |
| title_sort | luminal preservation protects the small intestine in a brain dead rat model |
| url | http://journals.lww.com/transplantationdirect/fulltext/10.1097/TXD.0000000000001378 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT guidotrentaduemdphd luminalpreservationprotectsthesmallintestineinabraindeadratmodel AT leandrovecchiomvphd luminalpreservationprotectsthesmallintestineinabraindeadratmodel AT gursahkatsugurlumdphd luminalpreservationprotectsthesmallintestineinabraindeadratmodel AT julietavernengomsc luminalpreservationprotectsthesmallintestineinabraindeadratmodel AT janwillemhavemanmdphd luminalpreservationprotectsthesmallintestineinabraindeadratmodel AT ivanaivanoffmsc luminalpreservationprotectsthesmallintestineinabraindeadratmodel AT klaasnicofaberphd luminalpreservationprotectsthesmallintestineinabraindeadratmodel AT martinrumbophd luminalpreservationprotectsthesmallintestineinabraindeadratmodel AT gerarddijkstramdphd luminalpreservationprotectsthesmallintestineinabraindeadratmodel |