Send to

Choose Destination
Scand J Immunol. 2015 Nov;82(5):467-75. doi: 10.1111/sji.12332.

Effect of Perfusion Fluids on Recovery of Inflammatory Mediators in Microdialysis.

Author information

Department of Immunology, Oslo University Hospital, and K.G. Jebsen IRC, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Institute for Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Research Laboratory, Nordland Hospital, Bodø and Faculty of Health Sciences, K.G. Jebsen TREC, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway.
Centre of Molecular Inflammation Research, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Clinic for Emergencies and Critical Care, Oslo University Hospital Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway.


Microdialysis is an excellent tool to assess tissue inflammation in patients, but in vitro systems to evaluate recovery of inflammatory mediators have not been standardized. We aimed to develop a reference plasma preparation and evaluate different perfusion fluids with respect to recovery of metabolic and inflammatory markers. The reference preparation was produced by incubation of human blood with lipopolysaccharide and cobra venom factor to generate cytokines and activate complement, respectively. Microdialysis with 100 kDa catheters was performed using different colloid and crystalloid perfusion fluids (hydroxyethyl starch (HES) 130/0.4, HES 200/0.5, hyperosmolar HES 200/0.5, albumin 200 g/l, T1 perfusion fluid and Ringer's acetate) compared to today's recommended dextran 60 solution. Recovery of glucose, glycerol and pyruvate was not significantly different between the perfusion fluids, whereas lactate had lower recovery in HES 200/0.5 and albumin perfusion fluids. Recovery rates for the inflammatory proteins in comparison with the concentration in the reference preparation differed substantially: IL-6 = 9%, IL-1β = 18%, TNF = 0.3%, MCP-1 = 45%, IL-8 = 48%, MIG = 48%, IP-10 = 25%, C3a = 53% and C5a = 12%. IL-10 was not detectable in microdialysis dialysate. HES 130/0.4 and HES 200/0.5 yielded a recovery not significantly different from dextran 60. Hyperosmolar HES 200/0.5 and albumin showed significantly different pattern of recovery with increased concentration of MIG, IP-10, C3a and C5a and decreased concentration of IL-1β, TNF, MCP-1 and IL-8 in comparison with dextran 60. In conclusion, microdialysis perfusion fluid dextran 60 can be replaced by the commonly used HES 130/0.4, whereas albumin might be used if specific immunological variables are in focus. The present reference plasma preparation is suitable for in vitro evaluation of microdialysis systems.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wiley
Loading ...
Support Center