Characterization of renal ischemia-reperfusion injury in rats

The purpose of this study was to characterize the time course of renal ischemia-reperfusion injury in the rat. Male Sprague-Dawley rats were subjected to bilateral renal clamping for 45 min. At reestablishment of blood flow, the rats were divided into nine groups (representing 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, and 24 h, and 1 week post-ischemia). At each time point, blood samples were taken for analysis of blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and creatinine, and both kidneys were harvested for histopathology and myeloperoxidase activity (MPO) assays. An intracellular adhesion molecular (ICAM-1) monoclonal antibody (IMAb) was tested in a separate group of animals (1 mg/rat) to confirm that it may provide renal protection previously reported by Kelly et al. (1994). Following renal ischemia, significant increases in serum BUN and creatinine were observed compared to levels in normal animals. Serum BUN and creatinine increased 2, 4, and 6 h post-ischemia leading to peak elevations 24 h post-ischemia. Values returned to normal at the 1 week time point. MPO activity was slightly increased 2 and 4 h following ischemia, with peak elevations occurring at the 6-h and 9-h time points. Histopathologic examination of kidneys revealed that the most severe damage occurred at the 24-h time point, which correlated with the peak elevations in serum BUN and creatinine. Evidence of renal injury was still evident histologically 1 week following ischemia, although renal function tests (BUN and creatinine) had returned to normal. In summary, renal injury following ischemia may be demonstrated as early as 4 h post-ischemia as judged by changes in renal function, MPO levels, and renal histopathology. However, based upon renal function tests and histology, peak injury is observed approximately 24 h following ischemia. The ICAM-1 monoclonal antibody, ICAM-Ab, provided some renal protection against ischemia-reperfusion injury in this study as measured by serum creatinine, BUN and renal histopathology. However, in contrast to the results reported by Kelly et al., the magnitude of the protective effects was not as dramatic in the present study, and furthermore, no reductions in renal MPO activity were observed.