4.5 Article

Intranasal selective brain cooling in pigs

期刊

RESUSCITATION
卷 76, 期 1, 页码 83-88

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2007.07.002

关键词

brain ischaemia; brain injury; cardiac arrest; cerebral blood flow; hypothermia; selective brain cooling; temperature

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Special clinical situations where general hypothermia cannot be recommended but can be a useful treatment demand a new approach, selective brain cooling. The purpose of this study was to selectively cool the brain with cold saline circulating in balloon catheters introduced into the nasal cavity in pigs. Material and methods: Twelve anaesthetised pigs were subjected to selective cerebral cooling for a period of 6 h. Cerebral temperature was towered by means of bilaterally introduced nasal balloon catheters perfused with saline cooled by a heat exchanger to 8-10 degrees C. Brain temperature was measured in both cerebral hemispheres. Body temperature was measured in rectum, oesophagus and the right atrium. The pigs were normoventilated and haemodynamic variables were measured continuously. Acid-base and electrolyte status was measured hourly. Results: Cerebral hypothermia was induced rapidly and within the first 20 min of cooling cerebral temperature was lowered from 38.1 +/- 0.6 degrees C by a mean of 2.8 +/- 0.6 to 35.3 +/- 0.6 degrees C. Cooling was maintained for 6 h and the final brain temperature was 34.7 +/- 0.9 degrees C. Concomitantly, the body temperature, as reflected by oesophageal temperature was decreased from 38.3 +/- 0. 5 to 36.6 +/- 0.9 degrees C. No circulatory or metabolic disturbances were noted. Conclusions: Inducing selective brain hypothermia with cold saline via nasal balloon catheters can effectively be accomplished in pigs, with no major disturbances in systemic circulation or physiological variables. The temperature gradients between brain and body can be maintained for at least 6 h. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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