4.6 Article

Intracranial Pressure Elevation 24 h after Ischemic Stroke in Aged Rats Is Prevented by Early, Short Hypothermia Treatment

期刊

FRONTIERS IN AGING NEUROSCIENCE
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2016.00124

关键词

ischemic stroke; intracranial pressure; therapeutic hypothermia; aged rats; middle cerebral artery occlusion; cerebral edema

资金

  1. NHMRC [APP1033461]
  2. Hunter Medical Research Institute
  3. Emlyn and Jennie Thomas Postgraduate Scholarship
  4. NIAMRC career development fellowship [APP1035465]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stroke is predominantly a senescent disease, yet most preclinical studies investigate treatment in young animals. We recently demonstrated that short-duration hypothermia-treatment completely prevented the dramatic intracranial pressure (ICP) rise seen post stroke in young rats. Here, our aim was to investigate whether a similar ICP rise occurs in aged rats and to determine whether short-duration hypothermia is an effective treatment in aged animals. Experimental middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAo-3 h occlusion) was performed on male Wistar rats aged 19-20 months. At 1 h after stroke-onset, rats were randomized to 2.5 h hypothermia treatment (32.5 degrees C) or normothermia (37 degrees C). ICP was monitored at baseline, for 3.5 h post-occlusion, and at 24 h post-stroke. Infarct and edema volumes were calculated from histology. Baseline pre-stroke ICP was 11.2 +/- 3.3 mmHg across all animals. Twenty-four hours post-stroke. ICP was significantly higher in normothermic animals compared to hypothermia-treated animals (27.4 +/- 18.2 mmHg vs. 8.0 +/- 5.0 mmHg, p = 0.03). Infarct and edema volumes were not significantly different between groups. These data demonstrate ICP may also increase 24 h post stroke in aged rats, and that short-duration hypothermia treatment has a profound and sustained preventative effect. These findings may have important implications for the use of hypothermia in clinical trials of aged stroke patients.

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