4.6 Article

Capillary-oxygenation-level-dependent nearinfrared spectrometry in frontal lobe of humans

期刊

JOURNAL OF CEREBRAL BLOOD FLOW AND METABOLISM
卷 27, 期 5, 页码 1082-1093

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1038/sj.jcbfm.9600416

关键词

activation; cerebral blood flow; hypocapnia; hypercapnia; hypoxia; jugular vein

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Brain function requires oxygen and maintenance of brain capillary oxygenation is important. We evaluated how faithfully frontal lobe near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) follows haemoglobin saturation ( S-Cap) and how calculated mitochondrial oxygen tension (PMitoO2) influences motor performance. Twelve healthy subjects (20 to 29 years), supine and seated, inhaled O-2 air- mixtures (10% to 100%) with and without added 5% carbon dioxide and during hyperventilation. Two measures of frontal lobe oxygenation by NIRS (NIRO-200 and INVOS) were compared with capillary oxygen saturation ( SCap) as calculated from the O2 content of brachial arterial and right internal jugular venous blood. At control S-Cap (78% +/- 4%; mean +/- s. d.) was halfway between the arterial ( 98% +/- 1%) and jugular venous oxygenation ( SvO2; 61% +/- 66%). Both NIRS devices monitored SCap (P < 0.001) within similar to 5% as SvO2 increased from 39% +/- 5% to 79% +/- 7% with an increase in the transcranial ultrasound Doppler determined middle cerebral artery flow velocity from 29 +/- 8 to 65 +/- 15cm/sec. When SCap fell below similar to 70% with reduced flow and inspired oxygen tension, PMitoO2 decreased (P < 0.001) and brain lactate release increased concomitantly (P < 0.001). Handgrip strength correlated with the measured ( NIRS) and calculated capillary oxygenation values as well as with PMitoO2 ( r > 0.74; P < 0.05). These results show that NIRS is an adequate cerebral capillaryoxygenation-level- dependent ( COLD) measure during manipulation of cerebral blood flow or inspired oxygen tension, or both, and suggest that motor performance correlates with the frontal lobe COLD signal.

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