Jonathan Snow1, Mehrdad Pourfathi1, Sarmad Siddiqui1, Ian Duncan1, Harrilla Profka1, Federico Sertic1,2, Stephen J Kadlecek1, Gabriel Unger1, Hooman Hamedani1,3, Yi Xin1,3, Luis Loza1, Faraz Amzajerdian 1,3, Tahmina Achekzai1, Kai Ruppert1, Ryan Baron1, Yiwen Qian1,3, Michael Rosalino1, Maurizio Cereda1,4, Shampa Chatterjee5, and Rahim R. Rizi1
1Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States, 2Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States, 3Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States, 4Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States, 5Physiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
Synopsis
Ex-vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) is a procedure used in clinical care to
support lung viability during transplantation. Here, we used magnetic resonance
spectroscopy (MRS) to monitor and compare the energy status of ex-vivo rat lungs
flushed and stored in cold Perfadex or perfused with a modified warm
Krebs-Henseleit buffer. The results demonstrate decreasing energy status over
the course of the 3hr experiment under both conditions, with a slightly lower
rate of decline in lung viability using cold Perfadex.
Introduction
A significant shortage
of available donor lungs presents a hurdle to the wide-spread use of lung
transplantation to treat end-stage lung disease. Lungs sourced after donor
brain death may alleviate this supply shortage, but organ management and preservation
strategies are needed due to the increased risk of ischemia-reperfusion injury,
primary graft dysfunction, and post-transplant complications in such lungs [1].
Ex-vivo lung perfusion is one such preservation
strategy, supporting lung tissue oxygenation, metabolic activity, and energy
status. EVLP also provides a mechanism for monitoring lung viability with
metabolic biomarkers, as well as the possibility for real-time intervention. The current standard of care (SOC) excises the
donor lung, flushes it with cold Perfadex, and stores it at 4-8oC [2].
In this study, a rat model was used to compare lung graft viability after static
cold preservation using cold SOC vs. EVLP with a warm modified Krebs–Henseleit
buffer (perfusate) by monitoring lung energy status via magnetic resonance
spectroscopy of metabolites. Materials and Methods
Sprague Dawley (n=6) rats were used for this study. Animals were
mechanically ventilated for 10 minutes (VT = 3.5 ml, f = 38 min-1,
FiO2 = 1.0, PEEP = 0 cmH2O) and lungs were
rapidly excised and placed in a 20 mm NMR tube before being transferred to the
MRI machine (AVANCE III 9.4T, Bruker Inc.). Lungs were perfused for 3 hours
through the pulmonary artery at a 10 ml/min flow rate with 500 ml of a modified
Krebs-Henseleit buffer (119 mM NaCl, 25 mM NaHCO3, 1.3 mM CaCl2,
1.2 mM MgSO4, 4.7 mM KCl, 10 mM glucose, 2 mM lactate, 0.2 mM
pyruvate, and 3% (w/v) fatty-acid-free bovine serum albumin). This setup is
shown in Figure 1. The perfusate was passed through an oxygenating column under
a constant flow of oxygen and warmed via passage through heated water-jacketed
tubing to maintain a temperature of ~37oC in the NMR tube. pH was
periodically adjusted to ~7.4 by adding 1.2 N HCl or NaOH to the perfusate
reservoir. After
1 hour of perfusion, three lungs were removed from the magnet, flushed with
20ml of 4oC Perfadex+ [XVIVO Perfusion], and stored in 4oC
Perfadex+ for 1 hour (SOC model), after which normal perfusion was resumed and
lungs were returned to the MRI machine. The remaining lungs (n=3) remained in
the spectrometer throughout the entire study (perfusate model). 31P
spectra were obtained using a 25-mm dual-tuned (1H/31P)
coil (Bruker Inc.) with the following acquisition parameters: TR=1 s, FA=60o,
SW=8 kHz, NP=2048, NA=1024, with a total acquisition time of ~17 minutes. Data
were processed using custom routines in MATLAB 2018a and RStudio 1.2.13.Results and Discussion
As lung energy status and mitochondrial function decline, a concomitant
decline in ATP signal can also be observed alongside an increase in Pi
signal, resulting in a lower β-ATP/Pi metabolite ratio [3]. Results
shown in Figure 2 demonstrate that both SOC and perfusate models exhibited a
similar decline in ATP signal coupled with an increase in Pi. Figure
3 shows that lungs treated with SOC exhibited higher β-ATP/Pi levels
and a slightly lower rate of decline compared to the perfusate model over the
course of the experiment. The fact that SOC lungs had higher β-ATP/Pi
ratios both at the start and throughout the experiment suggests that the SOC
lungs were healthier than the perfusate lungs, possibly independent of the
treatment. Based on the SOC lungs’ slightly lower rate of decline in energy
status vs perfusate lungs, the preservation benefit may only be minor. Additionally,
one observation in the SOC model which lowered the overall observed
preservation ability may be an outlier: one SOC lung’s initial β-ATP/Pi ratio
was similar to the other 2 SOC organs, indicating similar initial lung energy
status; however, this ratio rapidly declined soon after, suggesting a
deterioration in the lung, possibly caused by an O2 embolism. When
including this lung, the SOC and perfusate models’ rates of decline were not
statistically different. Conclusion
While the SOC maintained the lung’s energy
status better than the warm modified Krebs-Henseleit buffer, the difference was
not statistically significant, warranting further testing of both models as
well as the examination of additional metrics. Several studies have demonstrated
the potential utility of using hyperpolarized 13C pyruvate to
evaluate lung health [4]. Future studies will therefore use a combination of 31P
and 13C MRS in order to obtain a comprehensive characterization of
lung bioenergetics by differentiating the respective contributions of
phosphorylation and glycolysis to the preservation of lung energy production.
This combined imaging technique could potentially provide a powerful tool for
assessing various static preservation or perfusion strategies to improve lung
viability for transplantation.Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
[1] R. Watts, et al. Journal of Transplantation.
2013; 2013: 521369
[2] L. Munshi, et al. Lancet. 2013; 1(4):
318-328
[3] H. Shaghaghi, et al. Free Radical Biology
and Medicine. 2015; 89: 62-71
[4] H. Shaghaghi, et al. NMR in Biomedicine. 2013; 27:
939-947