4.8 Article

Gastric electrical stimulation with short pulses reduces vomiting but not dysrhythmias in dogs

期刊

GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 124, 期 2, 页码 401-409

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO
DOI: 10.1053/gast.2003.50048

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK55437] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & Aims: The aim of this study was to investigate the acute effects of 3 different methods of electrical stimulation in the prevention of vasopressin-induced emetic response and gastric dysrhythmias. Methods: Seven female hound dogs chronically implanted with 4 pairs of electrodes on gastric serosa were used in a 5-session study. Saline and vasopressin were infused in sessions 1. and 2, respectively. In the other 3 sessions with vasopressin infusion, 3 different methods of electrical stimulation (short-pulse stimulation, long-pulse stimulation, and electroacupuncture) were applied. Gastric slow waves and vomiting and behaviors suggestive of nausea were recorded in each session. In a separate study, additional experiments were performed in 5 vagotomized dogs to investigate vagally mediated mechanisms. Results: Vasopressin induced gastric dysrhythmias, uncoupling of slow waves, and vomiting and behaviors suggestive of nausea (P < 0.02, analysis of variance). Long-pulse stimulation, but not short-pulse stimulation or electroacupuncture, was capable of preventing vasopressin-induced gastric dysrhythmias and gastric slow wave uncoupling. Short-pulse stimulation and electroacupuncture, but not long-pulse stimulation, prevented vomiting and significantly reduced the symptom scores, which was not noted in the dogs with truncal vagotomy. Conclusions: Long-pulse stimulation normalizes vasopressin-induced slow wave abnormalities with no improvement in vomiting and behaviors suggestive of nausea. Short-pulse stimulation and electroacupuncture prevent vomiting and behaviors suggestive of nausea induced by vasopressin but have no effects on slow waves, and their effects are vagally mediated.

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