4.6 Article

Polynitroxyl albumin and albumin therapy after pediatric asphyxial cardiac arrest: effects on cerebral blood flow and neurologic outcome

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1038/jcbfm.2011.165

关键词

anoxia; CBF autoregulation; cardiac arrest; global ischemia; oxidative stress

资金

  1. NIH [K08HD058798]
  2. Laerdal Foundation
  3. AHA [10BGIA3580040]
  4. Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh
  5. [R01HD045968]
  6. [NS30318]
  7. [NS38087]
  8. [P41EB-001977]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Postresuscitation cerebral blood flow (CBF) disturbances and generation of reactive oxygen species likely contribute to impaired neurologic outcome after pediatric cardiac arrest (CA). Hence, we determined the effects of the antioxidant colloid polynitroxyl albumin (PNA) versus albumin or normal saline (NS) on CBF and neurologic outcome after asphyxial CA in immature rats. We induced asphyxia for 9 minutes in male and female postnatal day 16 to 18 rats randomized to receive PNA, albumin, or NS at resuscitation from CA or sham surgery. Regional CBF was measured serially from 5 to 150 minutes after resuscitation by arterial spin-labeled magnetic resonance imaging. We assessed motor function (beam balance and inclined plane), spatial memory retention (water maze), and hippocampal neuronal survival. Polynitroxyl albumin reduced early hyperemia seen 5 minutes after CA. In contrast, albumin markedly increased and prolonged hyperemia. In the delayed period after resuscitation (90 to 150 minutes), CBF was comparable among groups. Both PNA- and albumin-treated rats performed better in the water maze versus NS after CA. This benefit was observed only in males. Hippocampal neuron survival was similar between injury groups. Treatment of immature rats with PNA or albumin resulted in divergent acute changes in CBF, but both improved spatial memory retention in males after asphyxial CA. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism (2012) 32, 560-569; doi: 10.1038/jcbfm.2011.165; published online 30 November 2011

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