4.3 Article

Chronic intermittent hypoxia versus continuous hypoxia: Same effects on hemorheology?

期刊

CLINICAL HEMORHEOLOGY AND MICROCIRCULATION
卷 63, 期 3, 页码 245-255

出版社

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/CH-151973

关键词

Chronic intermittent hypoxia; continuous hypoxia; hemorheology; rat

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81070065, 81370181]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although both chronic intermittent hypoxia (CIH) and chronic continuous hypoxia (CCH) have effects on hemorheology, we do not know whether their roles are the same. In this study, we explored the effect of simulated-apnea CIH on hemorheology in experimental rats and compared with the effect of CCH. 45 adult SD rats were randomly divided into the normoxic control group, CCH and CIH groups. CIH rats were given nitrogen and air alternately for 8 hours per day and the experiment lasted for 5 weeks. The control group were placed in the normoxia animal chambers, and the CCH rats were housed in the same chambers which were continuously given normobaric hypoxia (FiO(2) = 10%). After the preparations, the blood samples were taken and the hemorheology were determined. Compared with control group, the whole blood apparent viscosity, plasma viscosity, hematocrit, erythrocyte aggregation index and electrophoresis index, platelet aggregation rate and fibrinogen significantly increased in CIH group and CCH group. The whole blood viscosity, plasma viscosity, hematocrit and fibrinogen values were much higher in CCH group than in CIH group. However, there was not significantly difference in RBC deformation index or rigidity index among the three groups and no significantly differences were found in the effects on RBC rheological property between CIH and CCH. Our results suggest that intermittent hypoxia and continuous hypoxia increase whole blood viscosity, impair the functions of red blood cells and promote the platelet aggregation in model rats. Moreover, CCH had a greater effect on blood rheology than CIH.

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

4.3
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