4.6 Article

Elevated Intracranial Pressure and Cerebral Edema following Permanent MCA Occlusion in an Ovine Model

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130512

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council [1017721]
  2. Overseas Biomedical Post-doctoral Training Fellowship [519365]
  3. Neurosurgical Research Foundation
  4. Neurosurgical Society of Australasia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Malignant middle cerebral artery (MCA) stroke has a disproportionately high mortality due to the rapid development of refractory space-occupying cerebral edema. Animal models are essential in developing successful anti-edema therapies; however to date poor clinical translation has been associated with the predominately used rodent models. As such, large animal gyrencephalic models of stroke are urgently needed. The aim of the study was to characterize the intracranial pressure (ICP) response to MCA occlusion in our recently developed ovine stroke model. Materials and Methods 30 adult female Merino sheep (n = 8-12/gp) were randomized to sham surgery, temporary or permanent proximal MCA occlusion. ICP and brain tissue oxygen were monitored for 24 hours under general anesthesia. MRI, infarct volume with triphenyltetrazolium chloride (TTC) staining and histology were performed. Results No increase in ICP, radiological evidence of ischemia within the MCA territory but without space-occupying edema, and TTC infarct volumes of 7.9+/-5.1% were seen with temporary MCAO. Permanent MCAO resulted in significantly elevated ICP, accompanied by 30% mortality, radiological evidence of space-occupying cerebral edema and TTC infarct volumes of 27.4+/-6.4%. Conclusions Permanent proximal MCAO in the sheep results in space-occupying cerebral edema, raised ICP and mortality similar to human malignant MCA stroke. This animal model may prove useful for pre-clinical testing of anti-edema therapies that have shown promise in rodent studies.

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