4.6 Article

Blood-brain barrier permeability for ammonia in patients with different grades of liver fibrosis is not different from healthy controls

期刊

JOURNAL OF CEREBRAL BLOOD FLOW AND METABOLISM
卷 30, 期 7, 页码 1384-1393

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1038/jcbfm.2010.22

关键词

cerebral ammonia metabolism; cerebral blood flow; hepatic encephalopathy; matrix metalloproteinases; positron emission tomography

资金

  1. Hochschulinterne Leistungsforderung' (HiLF) of Hannover Medical School

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increased blood-brain barrier (BBB) permeability for ammonia is considered to be an integral part of the pathophysiology of hepatic encephalopathy (HE) in patients with liver cirrhosis. Increased glutamate-/glutamine-signal intensity in magnetic resonance spectroscopic studies of the brain in cirrhotic patients was explained as a consequence of increased cerebral ammonia uptake. As similar spectroscopic alterations are present in patients with liver fibrosis, we hypothesized that BBB permeability for ammonia is already increased in liver fibrosis, and thereby contributing to the development of HE. To test this hypothesis, cerebral perfusion and ammonia metabolism were examined through positron emission tomography with O-15-water, respectively, N-13-ammonia in patients with Ishak grades 2 and 4 fibrosis, cirrhosis, and healthy controls. There were neither global nor regional differences of cerebral blood flow, the rate constant of unidirectional transport of ammonia from blood into brain tissue, the permeability surface area product of the BBB for ammonia, the net metabolic clearance rate constant of ammonia from blood into glutamine in brain, or the metabolic rate of ammonia. The hypothesis that increased permeability of the BBB for ammonia in patients with liver fibrosis contributes to the later development of HE could not be supported by this study. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism (2010) 30, 1384-1393; doi:10.1038/jcbfm.2010.22; published online 10 March 2010

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

4.6
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