Dichotomy of ischemic preconditioning: improved postischemic contractile function despite intensification of ischemic contracture

BACKGROUND: Acceleration of ischemic contracture is conventionally accepted as a predictor of poor postischemic function. Hence, protective interventions such as cardioplegia delay ischemic contracture and improve postischemic contractile recovery. We compared the effect of ischemic preconditioning and cardioplegia (alone and in combination) on ischemic contracture and postischemic contractile recovery. METHODS AND RESULTS: Isolated rat hearts were aerobically perfused with blood for 20 minutes before being subjected to zero-flow normothermic global ischemia for 35 minutes and reperfusion for 40 minutes. Hearts were perfused at a constant pressure for 60 mm Hg and were paced at 360 beats per minute. Left ventricular developed pressure and ischemic contracture were assessed with an intraventricular balloon. Four groups (n=8 hearts per group) were studied: control hearts with 35 minutes of unprotected ischemia, hearts preconditioned with one cycle of 3 minutes of ischemia plus 3 minutes of reperfusion before 35 minutes of ischemia, hearts subjected to cardioplegia with St Thomas' solution infused for 1 minute before 35 minutes of ischemia, and hearts subjected to preconditioning plus cardioplegia before 35 minutes of ischemia. After 40 minutes of reperfusion, each intervention produced a similar improvement in postischemic left ventricular development pressure (expressed as a percentage of its preischemic value: preconditioning, 44 +/- 2%; cardioplegia, 53 +/- 3%; preconditioning plus cardioplegia, 54 +/- 4% and control, 26 +/- 6%, P<.05). However, preconditioning accelerated whereas cardioplegia delayed ischemic contracture; preconditioning plus cardioplegia gave an intermediate result. Thus, times to 75% contracture were as follows: control, 14.3 +/- 0.4 minutes; preconditioning, 6.2 +/- 0.3 minutes; cardioplegia 23.9 +/- 0.8 minutes; and preconditioning plus cardioplegia 15.4 +/- 2.4 minutes (P<.05 preconditioning and cardioplegia versus control). In additional experiments, using blood- and crystalloid-perfused hearts, we describe the relationship between the number of preconditioning cycles and ischemic contracture. CONCLUSIONS: Although preconditioning accelerates, cardioplegia delays, and preconditioning plus cardioplegia has little effect on ischemic contracture, each affords similar protection of postischemic contractile function. These results question the utility of ischemic contracture as a predictor of the protective efficacy of anti-ischemic interventions. They also suggest that preconditioning and cardioplegia may act through very different mechanisms.