4.5 Article

Near-infrared spectroscopic quantification of changes in the concentration of oxidized cytochrome c oxidase in the healthy human brain during hypoxemia

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL OPTICS
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

SPIE-SOC PHOTO-OPTICAL INSTRUMENTATION ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1117/1.2718541

关键词

cytochrome c oxidase; near infrared spectroscopy; cerebral monitoring

资金

  1. EPSRC [EP/D060982/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The near-IR cytochrome c oxidase (CCO) signal has potential as a clinical marker of changes in mitochondrial oxygen utilization. We examine the CCO signal response to reduced oxygen delivery in the healthy human brain. We induced a reduction in arterial oxygen saturation from baseline levels to 80% in eight healthy adult humans, while minimizing changes in end tidal carbon dioxide tension. We measured changes in the cerebral concentrations of oxidized CCO (Delta[oxCCO], oxyhemoglobin (Delta[HbO(2)]), and deoxyhemoglobin bin (Delta[HHb]) using broadband near-IR spectroscopy (NIRS), and estimated changes in cerebral oxygen delivery (ecDO(2)) using pulse oximetry and transcranial Doppler ultrasonography. Results are presented as median (interquartile range). At the nadir of hypoxemia ecDO2 decreased by 9.2 (5.4 to 12.1)% (p< 0.0001), Delta[oxCCO] decreased by 0.24 (0.06 to 0.28) micromoles/l (p < 0.01), total hemoglobin concentration increased by 2.83 (2.27 to 4.46) micromoles/I (p < 0.0001), and change in hemoglobin difference concentration (Delta[Hbdiff] = Delta[HbO(2)]- Delta[HHb]) decreased by 12.72 (11.32 to 16.34) micromoles/I (p < 0.0001). Change in ecDO(2) correlated with Delta[oxCCO] (r=0.78, p < 0.001), but not with either change in total hemoglobin concentration or Delta[Hbdiff]. This is the first description of cerebral Delta[oxCCO] during hypoxemia in healthy adults. Studies are ongoing to investigate the clinical relevance of this signal in patients with traumatic brain injury. (C) 2007 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers.

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

4.5
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