4.7 Article

Reduction in renal blood flow following administration of norepinephrine and phenylephrine in septic rats treated with Kir6.1 ATP-sensitive and Kca1.1 calcium-activated K+ channel blockers

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY
卷 765, 期 -, 页码 42-50

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2015.08.014

关键词

Septic shock; Kidneys; Glibenclamide; Tetraethylammonium; Iberiotoxin

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa e Inovacao do Estado de Santa Catarina (FAPESC, SC, Brazil) [TR2012000367, TR201200078]
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq, Brazil) [448738/2014]
  3. Fundacao Araucaria (PR, Brazil)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We evaluated the effects of K+ channel blockers in the vascular reactivity of in vitro perfused kidneys, as well as on the influence of vasoactive agents in the renal blood flow of rats subjected to the cecal ligation and puncture (CLP) model of sepsis. Both norepinephrine and phenylephrine had the ability to increase the vascular perfusion pressure reduced in kidneys of rats subjected to CLP at 18 h and 36 h before the experiments. The non-selective K+ channel blocker tetraethylammonium, but not the K(ir)6.1 blocker glibenclamide, normalized the effects of phenylephrine in kidneys from the CLP 18 h group. Systemic administration of tetraethylammonium, glibenclamide, or the K(Ca)1.1 blocker iberiotoxin, did not change the renal blood flow in control or septic rats. Norepinephrine or phenylephrine also had no influence on the renal blood flow of septic animals, but its injection in rats from the CLP 18 h group previously treated with either glibenclamide or iberiotoxin resulted in an exacerbated reduction in the renal blood flow. These results suggest an abnormal functionality of K+ channels in the renal vascular bed in sepsis, and that the blockage of different subtypes of K+ channels may be deleterious for blood perfusion in kidneys, mainly when associated with vasoactive drugs. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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