4.5 Article

Iron chelation attenuates intracranial pressure and improves survival in a swine model of acute liver failure

期刊

LIVER TRANSPLANTATION
卷 14, 期 8, 页码 1116-1124

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lt.21505

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oxidative mechanisms have been implicated in the pathogenesis of brain edema in acute liver failure (ALF). The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that inhibition of iron-catalyzed oxidative reactions through iron chelation using deferoxamine could attenuate brain edema in a swine model of ischemic ALF. Following ALF induction (end-to-side portacaval anastomosis and ligation of the hepatoduodenal ligament), 14 animals were randomized to a study group that received an intravenous infusion of 150 mg/kg deferoxamine (group DF; n = 7) or a control group (group C; n = 7). Six sham-operated animals were also assigned to a deferoxamine-treated group (n = 3) or a control group (n = 3). Hemodynamic, neurological, and hematological parameters were monitored postoperatively. All sham animals maintained normal hemodynamics and intracranial pressure. At 18 hours, group DF animals had higher mean arterial pressure (mean +/- standard deviation: 98.0 +/- 15.9 versus 69.9 +/- 15.8 mmHg, P < 0.004), lower intracranial pressure (18.1 +/- 8.6 versus 32.7 +/- 13.4 mmHg, P < 0.032), and higher cerebral perfusion pressure (76.4 +/- 16.4 versus 37.1 +/- 25.6 mmHg, P < 0.006) in comparison with group C. Similar differences were recorded up to the 24th postoperative hour, leading to a significant difference in animal survival (88% in group DF versus 17% in group C, P < 0.001). Furthermore, group DF exhibited an attenuated increase of serum malondialdehyde from the baseline (16% versus 74%, P < 0.05) and lower brain malondialdehyde concentrations (3.7 +/- 1.3 versus 5.7 +/- 2.0 mu M/mg of protein, P < 0.05) in comparison with controls. In conclusion, deferoxamine delayed the development of intracranial hypertension and improved survival in pigs with ischemic ALF.

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