4.7 Article

Comparing hemodynamics, blood gas analyses and proinflammatory cytokines in endotoxemic and severely septic rats

期刊

INTERNATIONAL IMMUNOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 11, 期 6, 页码 719-723

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.intimp.2011.01.020

关键词

Cecal ligation and incision; Inflammation; Lipopolysaccharide; LPS; Sepsis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) is often used in short-term models of inflammation. Since endotoxemia and sepsis are different entities we have recently established a short-term sepsis model in rats induced by cecal ligation and incision (CLI). This retrospective study was conducted in order to identify similarities and differences between both experimental approaches. 32 anesthetized/ventilated male rats from the following four groups were analysed (each n = 8): CTRL-group (0.9% NaCl i.v.); LPS-group (5 mg/kg i.v.); SHAM-group (laparotomy); CLI-group (1.5 cm blade incision). Mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) and blood gas parameters (arterial base excess (BE) and pH) were continuously recorded. Total observation rime was 300 min. Plasma samples were obtained afterwards. LPS and CLI induced significant arterial hypotension and metabolic acidosis compared to CTRL- or SHAM-group, respectively. Yet, between the UPS- and CLI-groups, there were no differences in MAP, BE and pH. LPS significantly induced IL-1 beta, IL-6 and TNF-alpha in the plasma. In contrast, CLI showed a clear tendency towards increased IL-1 beta and IL-6 plasma levels and did not affect TNF-a. Our results indicate that the CLI sepsis model is suitable for short-term investigations on hemodynamic alterations and blood gas analyses during sepsis. 300 min after the proinflammatory insult, plasma concentrations of IL-1 beta and IL-6 in the plasma remain considerably lower after CLI compared to endotoxemia. Low TNF-a concentrations 300 min after sepsis induction could be interpreted as considerable immunosuppression during CLI sepsis. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据