4.5 Article

Hypoxic/ischemic models in newborn piglet:: Comparison of constant FiO2 versus variable FiO2 delivery

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 1100, 期 -, 页码 110-117

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.04.119

关键词

hypoxia/ischemia; newborn piglet

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A comparison of a constant (continuous delivery of 4% FiO(2)) and a variable (initial 5% FiO(2) with adjustments to induce low amplitude EEG (LAEEG) and hypotension) hypoxic/ischemic insult was performed to determine which insult was more effective in producing a consistent degree of survivable neuropathological damage in a newborn piglet model of perinatal asphyxia. We also examined which physiological responses contributed to this outcome. Thirty-nine 1-day-old piglets were subjected to either a constant hypoxic/ischemic insult of 30- to 37-min duration or a variable hypoxic/ischemic insult of 30-min low peak amplitude EEG (LAEEG < 5 mu V) including 10 min of low mean arterial blood pressure (MABP < 70% of baseline). Control animals (n = 6) received 21% FiO(2) for the duration of the experiment. At 72 h, the piglets were euthanased, their brains removed and fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde and assessed for hypoxic/ischemic injury by histological analysis. Based on neuropathology scores, piglets were grouped as undamaged or damaged; piglets that did not survive to 72 h were grouped separately as dead. The variable insult resulted in a greater number of piglets with neuropathological damage (undamaged = 12.5%, damaged = 68.75%, dead = 18.75%) while the constant insult resulted in a large proportion of undamaged piglets (undamaged = 50%, damaged = 22.2%, dead = 27.8%). A hypoxic insult varied to maintain peak amplitude EEG < 5 mu V results in a greater number of survivors with a consistent degree of neuropathological damage than a constant hypoxic insult. Physiological variables MABP, LAEEG, pH and arterial base excess were found to be significantly associated with neuropathological outcome. (c) 2006 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

4.5
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