4.6 Article

Antioxidant therapy in critical care-Is the microcirculation the primary target?

期刊

CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
卷 35, 期 9, 页码 S577-S583

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000278598.95294.C5

关键词

systemic inflammatory response syndrome; oxidative stress; antioxidant therapy; parenteral vitamin C; ascorbate; endothelial dysfunction; severe burn; multiple organ failure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review presents the rationale for the therapeutic use of antioxidants in treating critically ill patients; it is not a systematic review of the clinical evidence that has been assessed recently by others. Clinical and nonclinical evidence is presented to support the notion that natural antioxidants are of therapeutic value in treating cardiovascular shock. Oxidative stress is a major promoter and mediator of the systemic inflammatory response. The microcirculation is particularly susceptible to oxidative stress that causes hemodynamic instability, leading to multiple organ failure due to systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Vitamin C is the antioxidant used experimentally to demonstrate oxidative stress as a key pathophysiologic factor in septic shock. Pharmacologic studies reveal that vitamin C (as ascorbate), at supraphysiologic doses, significantly affects the bioavailability of nitric oxide during acute inflammation, including inhibiting nitric oxide synthetase induction. Parenteral high-dose vitamin C inhibits endotoxin-induced endothelial dysfunction and vasohyporeactivity in humans and reverses sepsis-induced suppression of microcirculatory control in rodents. In severe burn injury, in both animals and patients, parenteral high-dose vitamin C significantly reduces resuscitation fluid volumes. Therefore, a significant body of pharmacologic evidence and sound preliminary clinical evidence supports the biological feasibility of using the exemplary antioxidant, vitamin C, in the treatment of the critically ill. (Crit Care Med 2007; 35[Suppl.]:S577-S583)

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