4.6 Article

Treatment with low dose fasudil for acute ischemic stroke in chronic hypertension

期刊

JOURNAL OF CEREBRAL BLOOD FLOW AND METABOLISM
卷 37, 期 9, 页码 3262-3270

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0271678X17718665

关键词

Acute stroke; cerebral blood flow; focal ischemia; hypertension; animal models

资金

  1. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke [R01 NS093289]
  2. Totman Medical Research Trust
  3. Cardiovascular Research Institute of Vermont

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated the effect of Rho kinase inhibition on changes in cerebral blood flow (CBF), brain injury and vascular function after ischemic stroke in spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR). Changes in core MCA and collateral perfusion were measured by a validated laser Doppler method. Animals underwent 2 h tMCAO and 2 h reperfusion. Fasudil (0.1 mg/kg, i.v.) or vehicle was given at 30 min ischemia (n = 9/group; mean (SD)). Brain injury was determined by 2,3,5-triphenyltetrazolium chloride staining. To determine the effect of fasudil on vascular function, fasudil was given 10 min before reperfusion and parenchymal arterioles studied isolated (n = 6/group; mean(SD)). Collateral perfusion was low in vehicle-treated SHR (-8(32)%) that changed minimally with fasudil (6(24)%, p > 0.05, effect size: 0.47; 95% CI-0.49-1.39). Reperfusion CBF was below baseline in vehicle (-27(26)%) and fasudil (-32(25)%, p>0.05, effect size: 0.19; 95% CI-0.74-1.11) groups, suggesting incomplete reperfusion in both groups. Fasudil had little effect on brain injury volume (28(13)% vs. 36(7)% in vehicle, p > 0.05, effect size: 0.75; 95% CI-0.24-1.66). In isolated parenchymal arterioles, myogenic tone was similar between groups (37(6)% vs. 38(10)% in vehicle, p > 0.05, effect size: 0.09; 95% CI-1.05-1.21). There were no differences with fasudil treatment vs. vehicle in perfusion, brain injury and vascular function that may be related to the low dose that had minimal blood pressure lowering effect.

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