4.6 Article

Propofol anesthesia compared to awake reduces infarct size in rats

期刊

ANESTHESIOLOGY
卷 96, 期 5, 页码 1183-1190

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00000542-200205000-00023

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Propofol has not been studied directly in animals subject to cerebral ischemia In the conscious state. Strokes are usually induced in animals while they are anesthetized, making it difficult to eliminate anesthetic interactions as a complicating factor. Therefore, to compare the neuroprotective effects, of propofol to the unanesthetized state, experiments were performed using a model that induces a stroke in the conscious rat. Methods: Cerebral ischemia was induced in awake Wistar rats by a local intracerebral injection of the potent vasoconstrictor endothelin. Four days before (fie strokes were induced, a guide cannula was implanted for the injection of endothelin. on the day of the experiment, endothelin (6.0 pmol in 3 mul) was injected into the striatum. Propofol (25 or 15 mg . kg(-1) . h(-1)) or Intralipid (vehicle) were infused for 4 11 starting immediately after the endothelin injection. In another series, the propofol Infusion was begun 1 h after the endothelin injection and continued for 4 h. Three days later, the animals were killed, and the brains were sectioned and stained. Results: The propofol group (25 mg . kg(-1) . h(-1)) had a significantly reduced infarct size (0.7 +/- 0.21 mm(3), first 4 h; 0.27 +/- 0.07 mm(3), started 1 h after initiation of infarct) compared with the intralipid controls (3.40 +/- 0.53 mm(3)). To exclude a direct interaction between propofol and endothelin, in thiobutabarbital anesthetized rats, endothelin-induced cerebral vasoconstriction was examined using videomicroscopy, with or without propofol. Propofol had no effect on the magnitude or time course of the endothelin-induced vasoconstriction. Conclusions. The results show that concurrent or delayed administration of propofol is neuroprotective.

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