4.7 Article

Stroke propagates bacterial aspiration to pneumonia in a model of cerebral ischemia

期刊

STROKE
卷 37, 期 10, 页码 2607-2612

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.STR.0000240409.68739.2b

关键词

aspiration; mice; pneumonia; Streptococcus pneumoniae; stroke

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose-Bacterial pneumonia is the most common cause of death in patients sustaining acute stroke and is believed to result from an increased aspiration. Recently, stroke-induced immunodeficiency was described in a mouse model of cerebral ischemia, which is primarily caused by overactivation of sympathetic nervous system. We tested if stroke-induced immunodeficiency increases the risk of pneumonia after aspiration in a newly developed model of poststroke pneumonia. Methods-Experimental stroke in mice was induced by occlusion of the middle cerebral artery (MCAO) for 60 minutes. Aspiration pneumonia was induced by intranasal application of 20 mu L of a defined suspension of Streptococcus pneumoniae in phosphate-buffered saline 4 or 14 days after MCAO. Treatment comprised moxifloxacin (100 mg/kg body weight, six times every 2 hours after operation) or propranolol (30 mg/kg body weight, immediately before as well as 4 and 8 hours after MCAO). Readout was lung histology and bacterial counts in lung and blood. Results-Nasal inoculation of only 200 colony-forming units of S pneumoniae caused severe pneumonia and bacteremia after experimental stroke, whereas 200 000 colony-forming units are needed to induce comparable disease in sham animals. Aspiration pneumonia in stroke animals outlasted acute stroke state but was preventable by beta-adrenoreceptor blockade. Conclusions-Experimental stroke propagates bacterial aspiration from harmless intranasal colonization to harmful pneumonia. Prevention of infections by beta-adrenoreceptor blockade suggests that immunodepression by sympathetic hyperactivity is essential for progression of bacterial aspiration to pneumonia.

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