4.4 Article

Pulmonary histopathology in an experimental model of chronic aspiration is independent of acidity

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
卷 233, 期 10, 页码 1202-1212

出版社

SOC EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY MEDICINE
DOI: 10.3181/0801-RM-17

关键词

chronic aspiration; gastroesophageal reflux disease; GERD; lung injury; pulmonary

资金

  1. Parks Protocol Memorial Fund
  2. American College of Surgeons Faculty Research Fellowship Award
  3. Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons Research
  4. Duke Heart Center Career Development Award
  5. Fannie E. Rippel Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gastroesophageal reflux has become a major health concern in industrialized countries, with drugs aimed at blocking acid production being more frequently prescribed than any other drug. Damage to lung tissue as a result of chronic aspiration of gastric fluid is a primary health risk associated with gastroesophageal reflux, with such aspiration being suspected in the induction or exacerbation of asthma and other lung diseases. In this study, a rodent model of chronic aspiration was used to characterize the pulmonary histopathology produced by repetitive aspiration events and to investigate the pathologic roles of individual gastric fluid components such as acid and particulate food matter. Rats exposed to chronic aspiration of whole gastric fluid developed a pathology distinct from that of acute lung injury, characterized by granulomatous interstitial pneumonitis with prominent formation of multinucleated giant cells. This pattern of injury could be reproduced with chronic aspiration of particulate food matter and with chronic aspiration of pH-neutralized gastric fluid, but not with chronic aspiration of hydrochloric acid. Thus, since acid-neutralizing therapy is currently the mainstay of treatment for patients with reflux-associated respiratory symptoms, these results strongly suggest that alternative therapeutic approaches aimed at preventing chronic-aspiration induced lung injury may be warranted.

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

4.4
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