4.6 Article

Effect of ONO1714, a specific inducible nitric oxide synthase inhibitor, on lung lymph filtration and gas exchange during endotoxemia in unanesthetized sheep

期刊

ANESTHESIOLOGY
卷 101, 期 1, 页码 59-65

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00000542-200407000-00011

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The effect of nitric oxide synthase inhibitor on acute lung injury remains controversial. The current study was designed to examine effects of a newly synthesized and selective inducible nitric oxide synthase inhibitor, ONO1714, on endotoxin-induced lung injury in unanesthetized sheep. Methods: Thirteen unanesthetized sheep chronically instrumented with a lung lymph fistula and vascular catheters for monitoring were prepared. Animals were randomly allocated into two experimental groups. In experiment 1, sheep (n = 6) were infused only with endotoxin (1 mug/kg) for 30 min. In experiment 2, sheep (n = 7) were pretreated with ONO1714 (0.1 mg/kg) before 30 min of endotoxin administration, and the endotoxin was infused in the same manner as in experiment 1. Mean pulmonary arterial pressure, left atrial pressure, systemic arterial pressure, and lung lymph flow were measured. Observation was continued over 5 h after endotoxin administration. Results: ONO1714 did not cause any pulmonary hemodynamic changes at baseline or exert any influences on transient pulmonary hypertension and increased pulmonary vascular resistance during endotoxemia. However, inducible nitric oxide synthase inhibition with ONO1714 significantly reduced lung lymph filtration and improved abnormal oxygenation during endotoxemia. In addition, increased nitrate-nitrite in plasma and lung lymph in response to endotoxin was prevented by treatment with ONO1714. Conclusions. These findings suggest that nitric oxide release by the inducible nitric oxide synthase pathway partially contributes to the increased permeability of pulmonary edema and decreased oxygenation during endotoxemia in sheep.

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