4.6 Article

Vagal denervation inhibits the increase in pulmonary blood flow during partial lung aeration at birth

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-LONDON
卷 595, 期 5, 页码 1593-1606

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1113/JP273682

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Research Council
  2. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council
  3. Victorian Government's Operational Infrastructure Support Program
  4. International Synchrotron Access Program (ISAP)
  5. Australian Government
  6. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [J 3595-B19]
  7. ARC Australian Research Fellowship [DP110101941]
  8. Veni-grant from The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) of the Innovational Research Incentives Scheme Veni-Vidi-Vici

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Air entry into the lungs at birth triggers major cardiovascular changes, including a large increase in pulmonary blood flow (PBF) that is not spatially related to regional lung aeration. To investigate the possible underlying role of a vagally-mediated stimulus, we used simultaneous phase-contrast X-ray imaging and angiography in near-term (30 days of gestation) vagotomized (n = 15) or sham-operated (n = 15) rabbit kittens. Rabbits were imaged before ventilation, when one lung was ventilated (unilateral) with 100% nitrogen (N-2), air or 100% oxygen (O-2), and after all kittens were switched to unilateral ventilation in air and then ventilation of both lungs using air. Compared to control kittens, vagotomized kittens had little or no increase in PBF in both lungs following unilateral ventilation when ventilation occurred with 100% N-2 or with air. However, relative PBF did increase in vagotomized animals ventilated with 100% O-2, indicating the independent stimulatory effects of local oxygen concentration and autonomic innervation on the changes in PBF at birth. These findings demonstrate that vagal denervation inhibits the previously observed increase in PBF with partial lung aeration, although high inspired oxygen concentrations can partially mitigate this 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