4.6 Article

Calcium channel blockade with nimodipine reverses MRI evidence of cerebral oedema following acute hypoxia

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0271678X17726624

关键词

Apparent diffusion coefficient; calcium; hypoxia; MRI; nimodipine

资金

  1. JABBS Foundation
  2. National Institute for Health Research of Oxford Biomedical Research Centre based at Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Oxford
  3. Medical Research Council, UK [G100466, G0802826]
  4. UK MRC [MR/K006673/1]
  5. MRC [MR/K006673/1, G0802826, G1100466] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acute cerebral hypoxia causes rapid calcium shifts leading to neuronal damage and death. Calcium channel antagonists improve outcomes in some clinical conditions, but mechanisms remain unclear. In 18 healthy participants we: (i) quantified with multiparametric MRI the effect of hypoxia on the thalamus, a region particularly sensitive to hypoxia, and on the whole brain in general; (ii) investigated how calcium channel antagonism with the drug nimodipine affects the brain response to hypoxia. Hypoxia resulted in a significant decrease in apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), a measure particularly sensitive to cell swelling, in a widespread network of regions across the brain, and the thalamus in particular. In hypoxia, nimodipine significantly increased ADC in the same brain regions, normalizing ADC towards normoxia baseline. There was positive correlation between blood nimodipine levels and ADC change. In the thalamus, there was a significant decrease in the amplitude of low frequency fluctuations (ALFF) in resting state functional MRI and an apparent increase of grey matter volume in hypoxia, with the ALFF partially normalized towards normoxia baseline with nimodipine. This study provides further evidence that the brain response to acute hypoxia is mediated by calcium, and importantly that manipulation of intracellular calcium flux following hypoxia may reduce cerebral cytotoxic oedema

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