4.5 Article

Cerebral blood flow autoregulation in early experimental S-pneumoniae meningitis

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 102, 期 1, 页码 72-78

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00697.2006

关键词

bacterial meningitis; cerebral perfusion pressure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We studied cerebral blood flow ( CBF) autoregulation and intracranial pressure ( ICP) during normo- and hyperventilation in a rat model of Streptococcus pneumoniae meningitis. Meningitis was induced by intracisternal injection of S. pneumoniae. Mean arterial blood pressure ( MAP), ICP, cerebral perfusion pressure ( CPP, defined as MAP - ICP), and laser- Doppler CBF were measured in anesthetized infected rats ( n = 30) and saline- inoculated controls ( n = 30). CPP was either incrementally reduced by controlled hemorrhage or increased by intravenous norepinephrine infusion. Twelve hours postinoculation, rats were studied solely during normocapnia, whereas rats studied after 24 h were exposed to either normocapnia or to acute hypocapnia. In infected rats compared with control rats, ICP was unchanged at 12 h but increased at 24 h postinoculation ( not significant and P < 0.01, respectively); hypocapnia did not lower ICP compared with normocapnia. Twelve hours postinoculation, CBF autoregulation was lost in all infected rats but preserved in all control rats ( P < 0.01). Twenty- four hours after inoculation, 10% of infected rats had preserved CBF autoregulation during normocapnia compared with 80% of control rats ( P < 0.01). In contrast, 60% of the infected rats and 100% of the control rats showed an intact CBF autoregulation during hypocapnia ( P < 0.05 for the comparison of infected rats at normocapnia vs. hypocapnia). In conclusion, CBF autoregulation is lost both at 12 and at 24 h after intracisternal inoculation of S. pneumoniae in rats. Impairment of CBF autoregulation precedes the increase in ICP, and acute hypocapnia may restore autoregulation without changing the ICP.

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

4.5
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