4.5 Article

Validation of lower body negative pressure as an experimental model of hemorrhage

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 116, 期 4, 页码 406-415

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00640.2013

关键词

blood loss; central hypovolemia; stroke volume; blood pressure; central venous pressure; cardiac output

资金

  1. United States Army, Medical Research and Materiel Command

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lower body negative pressure (LBNP), a model of hemorrhage (Hem), shifts blood to the legs and elicits central hypovolemia. This study compared responses to LBNP and actual Hem in sedated baboons. Arterial pressure, pulse pressure (PP), central venous pressure (CVP), heart rate, stroke volume (SV), and +dP/dt were measured. Hem steps were 6.25%, 12.5%, 18.75%, and 25% of total estimated blood volume. Shed blood was returned, and 4 wk after Hem, the same animals were subjected to four LBNP levels which elicited equivalent changes in PP and CVP observed during Hem. Blood gases, hematocrit (Hct), hemoglobin (Hb), plasma renin activity (PRA), vasopressin (AVP), epinephrine (EPI), and norepinephrine (NE) were measured at baseline and maximum Hem or LBNP. LBNP levels matched with 6.25%, 12.5%, 18.75%, and 25% hemorrhage were -22 +/- 6, -41 +/- 7, -54 +/- 10, and -71 +/- 7 mmHg, respectively (mean +/- SD). Hemodynamic responses to Hem and LBNP were similar. SV decreased linearly such that 25% Hem and matching LBNP caused a 50% reduction in SV. Hem caused a decrease in Hct, Hb, and central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO(2)). In contrast, LBNP increased Hct and Hb, while ScvO(2) remained unchanged. Hem caused greater elevations in AVP and NE than LBNP, while PRA, EPI, and other hematologic indexes did not differ between studies. These results indicate that while LBNP does not elicit the same effect on blood cell loss as Hem, LBNP mimics the integrative cardiovascular response to Hem, and validates the use of LBNP as an experimental model of central hypovolemia associated with Hem.

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

4.5
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