4.5 Review

Arterial hyperoxia in severe head injury: A useful or harmful option?

期刊

CURRENT PHARMACEUTICAL DESIGN
卷 10, 期 18, 页码 2163-2176

出版社

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.2174/1381612043384187

关键词

normobaric hyperoxia; traumatic brain injury; aerobic metabolism; brain hypoxia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is Mounting evidence both from experimental and clinical studies that traumatic brain injury (TBI) is associated with a reduction of aerobic metabolism. This results from a variable combination of impaired substrate deliver), and mitochondrial failure. Mitochondria, which are responsible lor the production of 95% of cell adenosine triphosphate (ATP), may become compromised after TBI. Oil the other hand. in the very early period after the primary injury, oxygen delivery may be impaired due to arterial hypoxia and/or to a reduction of cerebral blood flow (CBF). As a consequence, 80-90% of patients who die of head injury show ischemia oil histo-pathological examination of the brain tissue. In the absence of an appropriate treatment for TBI, these observations favored the hypothesis that manipulation of brain oxygen delivery Could be a therapeutic 1001 to improve aerobic metabolism. Several strategies were developed, including the increase of cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) using airlines or the increase of arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) through hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) or normobaric hyperoxia. Several experimental and clinical Studies, using normobaric hyperoxia, demonstrated an increase in brain tissue oxygen tension and a reduction of brain extracellular lactate levels. but there is no consensus about the biological meaning of these findings. For some authors, they translate an improvement of brain oxidative metabolism, while For others they represent only biological epiphenomena. The current review addresses the rational behind normobaric hyperoxia as a therapeutic application and discusses the experimental and clinical results achieved so Far.

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