4.6 Article

Comparison of University of Wisconsin, Euro-Collins, low-potassium dextran, and Krebs-Henseleit solutions for hypothermic lung preservation

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-YEAR BOOK INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5223(00)70087-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM43890] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: We sought to test the effectiveness of 4 different solutions for hypothermic rat lung preservation. Methods: One hundred ninety-two rats were used. The rats were divided into 4 groups, and University of Wisconsin, Euro-Collins, low-potassium dextran, or Krebs-Henseleit solution was used in each group. They were further divided into 6 subgroups of 8 rats each. The lungs were preserved at 4 degrees C for 0, 4, 6, 8, 12, or 24 hours, respectively, and lung function was studied by using a living rat perfusion model. Results: Pulmonary arterial flow decreased in each group after 4 to 6 hours of preservation; the low-potassium dextran group decreased the least and the Krebs-Henseleit group decreased the most, Pulmonary vascular resistance increased in each group after 6 hours of preservation; the Krebs-Henseleit group increased the most. Although airway pressure increased, static lung compliance and gas exchange capacity decreased after 8 hours of preservation; the Krebs-Henseleit group exhibited the worst values. Lung tissue wet/dry weight ratio increased gradually during preservation; the University of Wisconsin group exhibited the least increase. An ultrastructural study indicated the least morphologic changes in the low-potassium dextran group at 24 hours. Conclusions: At 4 degrees C, all solutions preserved rat lungs for 4 hours with acceptable function. However, 6 hours of preservation resulted in damaged pulmonary function in some lungs, and this damage increased when preservation time was extended. The lungs preserved in low-potassium dextran solution had the best overall function, but the lungs preserved in University of Wisconsin solution had less edema.

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