4.6 Article

Brain tissue oxygen monitoring identifies cortical hypoxia and thalamic hyperoxia after experimental cardiac arrest in rats

期刊

PEDIATRIC RESEARCH
卷 75, 期 2, 页码 295-301

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/pr.2013.220

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH
  2. Bethesda, MD) [K08 HD058798]
  3. NIH [R01 HD075760, R01 HD045968, K23 NS065132]
  4. American Heart Association [10BGIA3580040]
  5. Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh Research Grant (Pittsburgh, PA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Optimization of cerebral oxygenation after pediatric cardiac arrest (CA) may reduce neurological damage associated with the post-CA syndrome. We hypothesized that important alterations in regional partial pressure of brain tissue oxygen (PbO2) occur after resuscitation from CA and that clinically relevant interventions such as hyperoxia and blood pressure augmentation would influence PbO2. METHODS: Cortical and thalamic PbO2 were monitored in immature rats subjected to asphyxial CA (9 or 12 min asphyxia) and sham-operated rats using oxygen sensors. RESULTS: Thalamus and cortex showed similar baseline PbO2. Postresuscitation, there was early and sustained cortical hypoxia in an insult-duration dependent fashion. In contrast, thalamic PbO2 initially increased fourfold and afterwards returned to baseline values. PbO2 level was dependent on the fraction of inspired O-2, and the response to oxygen was more pronounced after a 9 vs. 12 min CA. After a 12 min CA, PbO2 was modestly affected by blood pressure augmentation using, epinephrine in the thalamus but not in the cortex. CONCLUSION: After asphyxial pediatric CA, there is marked regional variability of cerebral oxygenation. Cortical hypoxia is pronounced and appears early, whereas thalamic hyperoxia is followed by normoxia. Compromised PbO2 in the cortex may represent a relevant and clinically measurable therapeutic target aimed at improving neurological outcome after pediatric CA.

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