DIFFERENT PROTOCOLS OF POSTCONDITIONING DOES NOT ATTENUATE MESENTERIC ISCHEMIA-REPERFUSION INJURY AFTER SHORT-TERM REPERFUSION.

Background: Mesenteric ischemia is a challenging diagnosis. Delay in diagnosis can lead to extent bowel necrosis and poor outcomes. Ischemia and reperfusion syndrome plays an important role in this scenario.

Aim: To access effects of different post-conditioning cycles on mesenteric ischemia-reperfusion syndrome.

Method: Twenty-five rats were assigned into five groups: Sham, used to establish normal parameters; control group, submitted to mesenteric ischemia for 30 min; in groups GP3, GP1 and GP30, ischemia was followed by post-conditioning protocol, which consisted of 1 cycle of 3 min (GP3), 3 cycles of 1 min (GP1) or 6 cycles of 30 s (GP30), respectively. Ileum samples were harvested after one hour of reperfusion. Intestinal mucosal injury was evaluated through histopathological analysis.

Results: The average of mesenteric injury degree was 0 in the sham group, 3.6 in the control group, 3.4 in GP3, 3.2 in GP1, and 3.0 in GP30; villous length average was 161.59 in sham group, 136.27 in control group, 135.89 in GP3, 129.46 in GP1, and 135.18 in GP30. Was found significant difference between sham and other groups (p<0.05); however, there was no difference among post-conditioning groups.

Conclusion: Post-conditioning adopted protocols were not able to protect intestinal mucosa integrity after mesenteric ischemia and short term reperfusion.