4.6 Article

Analysis of neuronal, glial, endothelial, axonal and apoptotic markers following moderate therapeutic hypothermia and anesthesia in the developing piglet brain

期刊

BRAIN PATHOLOGY
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 10-20

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-3639.2007.00095.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust Funding Source: Medline
  2. Sparks Charity [05BTL01] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hypothermia (HT) by whole body (WBC) or selective head cooling (SHC) reduces hypoxic-ischemic (HI) brain injury; however, whether prolonged hypothermia and/or anesthesia disrupts immature brain development, eg, increases apoptosis, is unknown. Anesthesia increases apoptosis in immature animals. We investigated whether neuroprotective hypothermia and anesthesia disrupts normal brain development. Thirty-eight pigs <24 h old were randomized between five groups and were killed after 72 h: eighteen received a global hypoxic-ischemic insult under anesthesia, eight subsequently cooled by SHC with WBC to T-rectal 34.5 degrees C for 24 h, followed by 48 h normothermia (NT) at T-rectal 39.0 degrees C, while 10 remained normothermic. Sixteen underwent anesthetized sham hypoxic-ischemic, six then following normothermia and 10 following hypothermia protocols. There were four normothermic controls. The hypothermia groups demonstrated significant brain hypothermia. In the hypoxic-ischemic groups this conferred similar to 60% neuroprotection reducing histological injury scores in all brain areas. Immunohistochemical/histochemical analyses of neuronal, glial, endothelial, axonal, transcriptional apoptotic markers in areas devoid of histological lesions revealed no hypothermia/normothermia group and differences whether exposed to hypoxic-ischemic or not. Neither 36-h anesthesia nor 24-h hypothermia produced adverse effects at 4-day survival on a panel of brain maturation/neural death markers in newborn pigs. Longer survival studies are necessary to verify the safety of hypothermia in the developing brain.

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