Oxidative stress evaluation of ischemia and reperfusion in kidneys under various degrees of hypothermia in rats

PURPOSE: To design an animal model of ischemia-reperfusion (I/R) in kidneys and evaluate the role that predetermined ranges of local hypothermia plays on markers of stress-oxydative as well as on histologic sections. METHODS: Twenty eight male rats Wistar, under general anesthesia, undergone right nephrectomy (G0, control group) followed by left kidney ischemia during 40 min. Four temperatures groups were designed, with seven animals randomized for each group: normothermic (G1, ±37oC), mild hypothermia (G2, 26oC), moderate hypothermia (G3, 15oC) and deep hypothermia (G4, 4oC). Left kidney temperature was assessed with an intraparenchymal probe. Left nephrectomy was performed after 240 min of reperfusion. After I/R a blood sample was obtained for f2-IP. Half of each kidney was sent to pathological evaluation and half to analyze CAT, SOD, TBARS, NO3, NO2. RESULTS: Histopathology showed that all kidneys under I/R were significantly more injured than the G0 (p<0.001). TBARS had increased levels in all I/R groups compared with the G0 (p<0.001). CAT had a significant difference (p<0.03) between G1 and G4. Finally, no difference was found on SOD, NO3, NO2 nor on f2-IP. CONCLUSION: This model of I/R was efficient to produce oxidative-stress in the kidney, showing that 4ºC offered significant decrease in free radicals production, although tissue protection was not observed

ESTIMATING BASAL ENERGY EXPENDITURE IN LIVER TRANSPLANT RECIPIENTS: THE VALUE OF THE HARRIS-BENEDICT EQUATION

ABSTRACT Background: Reliable measurement of basal energy expenditure (BEE) in liver transplant (LT) recipients is necessary for adapting energy requirements, improving nutritional status and preventing weight gain. Indirect calorimetry (IC) is the gold standard for measuring BEE. However, BEE may be estimated through alternative methods, including electrical bioimpedance (BI), Harris-Benedict Equation (HBE), and Mifflin-St. Jeor Equation (MSJ) that carry easier applicability and lower cost. Aim: To determine which of the three alternative methods for BEE estimation (HBE, BI and MSJ) would provide most reliable BEE estimation in LT recipients. Methods: Prospective cross-sectional study including dyslipidemic LT recipients in follow-up at a 735-bed tertiary referral university hospital. Comparisons of BEE measured through IC to BEE estimated through each of the three alternative methods (HBE, BI and MSJ) were performed using Bland-Altman method and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test. Results: Forty-five patients were included, aged 58±10 years. BEE measured using IC was 1664±319 kcal for males, and 1409±221 kcal for females. Average difference between BEE measured by IC (1534±300 kcal) and BI (1584±377 kcal) was +50 kcal (p=0.0384). Average difference between the BEE measured using IC (1534±300 kcal) and MSJ (1479.6±375 kcal) was -55 kcal (p=0.16). Average difference between BEE values measured by IC (1534±300 kcal) and HBE (1521±283 kcal) was -13 kcal (p=0.326). Difference between BEE estimated through IC and HBE was less than 100 kcal for 39 of all 43patients. Conclusions: Among the three alternative methods, HBE was the most reliable for estimating BEE in LT recipients