4.4 Article

Importance of anesthesia for the genesis of neurogenic pulmonary edema in spinal cord injury

Journal

NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS
Volume 373, Issue 2, Pages 165-170

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2004.10.019

Keywords

spinal cord injury; neurogenic pulmonary edema; pentobarbital; xylazine; ketamine

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There are reports describing both provocation and inhibition of neurogenic pulmonary edema by anesthetic drugs. Therefore, we compared the effect of two types of anesthesia on the formation of neurogenic pulmonary edema in rats with balloon-induced acute spinal cord injury. Animals with sham procedure (group 1) were anesthesized by intraperitoneal sodium pentobarbital. In the experimental groups. rats were submitted 10 acute spinal cord lesion by insufflations of a balloon in the epidural space at TS for 1 min (group 3 under i.p. sodium pentobarbital and group 2 under i.p. xylazine-ketamine anesthesia). In rats with pentobarbital anesthesia, systolic blood pressure doubled the baseline value during compression. whereas this effect was less pronounced in the ketamine-xylazine group. The pulmonary index (100 x wet lung weight/body weight) was 0.395 (+/-0.018) in sham-operated rats, rose to 0.1199 (+/-0.060) in group 2, and was maximum under pentobarbital anesthesia (0.639 +/- 0.14: p = 0.0018). Histologic examination of the spinal cord showed parenchymal ruptures and acute hemorrhage. Comparison of the pulmonary index with histologic slides of lung parenchyma revealed that relevant intra-alveolar edema occurred only for index values above 0.55. On electron microscopy, endothelial alterations, and damage of the alveolar lining cells were found. Our study indicates that neurogenic pulmonary edema caused by spinal cord injury is less pronounced in rats under xylazine-ketamine anesthesia, when compared with pentobarbital. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available