Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Background: Aortic arch reconstruction in neonates is often challenging, owning its surgical complexity and postoperative complication risk. To assess intestinal damage, we compared selective anterograde cerebral perfusion (SACP) and SACP with additional distal perfusion (SACP + DP) used in aortic arch surgery in a neonatal piglet model. Methods: Piglets underwent cardiac arrest for 60 min with SACP (n = 9) or SACP + DP (n = 9), followed by a 120 min recovery. Hemodynamic parameters, blood gases and electrolytes were monitored. Biopsies of the small intestine and colon were analyzed for histopathological changes, intestinal barrier function, and oxidative stress. Results: Hemodynamic measurements and electrolyte concentrations were comparable between SACP and SACP + DP (p > 0.05), except for potassium levels during cardiac arrest (p = 0.03). Blood lactate levels (p p p = 0.02) and a thicker mucosal layer (p = 0.05) of colonic structures in the SACP group. Compared to SACP, the mRNA expression of cytoprotective Parkinson's disease protein DJ-1 (p = 0.02) and hypoxia-inducible nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (p = 0.04) were higher in the small intestine of the SACP + DP group. The marker of epithelial barrier function, E-cadherin, showed lower mRNA expression in the colon of the SACP + DP group (p = 0.02). Conclusions: Our study results showed that SACP + DP revealed less intestinal tissue damage and loss of structural integrity, as well as an upregulation of cytoprotective molecules and anti-oxidative stress mechanisms. Therefore, SACP + DP is a reliable procedure in our model for aortic arch surgery that can contribute to better postoperative outcomes by reducing intestinal damage.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.