Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2009 May 4.
Published in final edited form as: Circulation. 2008 Oct 20;118(19):1961–1969. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.788240

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Reduction in infarct size conferred by SWIPC vs RCS. The Figure shows the reduction in IS/AAR in SWIPC and RCS compared with controls and shows that with addition of L-NNA, the cardioprotection was lost in SWIPC but not RCS. *P<0.05 vs control. n=5 per group except for SWIPC with L-NNA (n=7) and RCS with L-NNA (n=4). The dual perfusion of 1 pig heart in the RCS with L-NNA group was not adequate, and infarct size data could only be obtained in 4 animals in that group.