4.8 Article

Acute neurocardiogenic injury after subarachnoid hemorrhage

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 112, 期 21, 页码 3314-3319

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.558239

关键词

echocardiography; scintigraphy; nervous system, sympathetic; hemorrhage

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [K23 HL04054-01A1, HL64961] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-Left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction has been reported in humans with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), and its underlying pathophysiology remains controversial. Possible mechanisms include myocardial ischemia versus excessive catecholamine release from sympathetic nerve terminals. Methods and Results-For 38 months, echocardiography and myocardial scintigraphy with technetium sestamibi ( MIBI) and meta-[I-123] iodobenzylguanidine ( MIBG) were performed on 42 patients admitted with SAH to assess myocardial perfusion and sympathetic innervation, respectively. A blinded observer interpreted the scintigraphic images. Cardiac troponin I (cTI) was measured to quantify the degree of myocyte necrosis. Blinded observers calculated the LV ejection fraction and graded each LV segment as normal (score=1), hypokinetic (score=2), or akinetic (score=3). A wall-motion score was calculated by averaging the sum of the 16 segments. All subjects with interpretable scans (N=41) had normal MIBI uptake. Twelve subjects had either global (n=9) or regional (n=3) absence of MIBG uptake. In comparison with patients with normal MIBG uptake, those with evidence of functional denervation were more likely to have LV regional wall-motion abnormalities (92% versus 52%, P=0.030) and cTI levels > 1 mu g/L (58% versus 21%, P=0.029). Conclusions-LV systolic dysfunction in humans with SAH is associated with normal myocardial perfusion and abnormal sympathetic innervation. These findings may be explained by excessive release of norepinephrine from myocardial sympathetic nerves, which could damage both myocytes and nerve terminals.

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

4.8
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