ub.xmlui.mirage2.page-structure.muninLogoub.xmlui.mirage2.page-structure.openResearchArchiveLogo
    • EnglishEnglish
    • norsknorsk
  • Velg spraaknorsk 
    • EnglishEnglish
    • norsknorsk
  • Administrasjon/UB
Vis innførsel 
  •   Hjem
  • Det helsevitenskapelige fakultet
  • Institutt for klinisk medisin
  • Artikler, rapporter og annet (klinisk medisin)
  • Vis innførsel
  •   Hjem
  • Det helsevitenskapelige fakultet
  • Institutt for klinisk medisin
  • Artikler, rapporter og annet (klinisk medisin)
  • Vis innførsel
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Comparison between two pharmacologic strategies to alleviate rewarming shock: vasodilation vs. inodilation

Permanent lenke
https://hdl.handle.net/10037/20510
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2020.566388
Thumbnail
Åpne
article.pdf (2.668Mb)
Publisert versjon (PDF)
Dato
2020-11-12
Type
Journal article
Tidsskriftartikkel
Peer reviewed

Forfatter
Håheim, Brage; Kondratyev, Timofey; Dietrichs, Erik Sveberg; Tveita, Torkjel
Sammendrag
Rewarming from hypothermia is often challenged by coexisting cardiac dysfunction, depressed organ blood flow (OBF), and increased systemic vascular resistance. Previous research shows cardiovascular inotropic support and vasodilation during rewarming to elevate cardiac output (CO). The present study aims to compare the effects of inodilatation by levosimendan (LS) and vasodilation by nitroprusside (SNP) on OBF and global oxygen transport during rewarming from hypothermia. We used an in vivo experimental rat model of 4 h 15°C hypothermia and rewarming. A stable isotope-labeled microsphere technique was used to determine OBF. Cardiac and arterial pressures were monitored with fluid-filled pressure catheters, and CO was measured by thermodilution. Two groups were treated with either LS (n = 7) or SNP (n = 7) during the last hour of hypothermia and throughout rewarming. Two groups served as hypothermic (n = 7) and normothermic (n = 6) controls. All hypothermia groups had significantly reduced CO, oxygen delivery, and OBF after rewarming compared to their baseline values. After rewarming, LS had elevated CO significantly more than SNP (66.57 ± 5.6/+30% vs. 54.48 ± 5.2/+14%) compared to the control group (47.22 ± 3.9), but their ability to cause elevation of brain blood flow (BBF) was the same (0.554 ± 0.180/+81 vs. 0.535 ± 0.208/+75%) compared to the control group (0.305 ± 0.101). We interpret the vasodilator properties of LS and SNP to be the primary source to increase organ blood flow, superior to the increase in CO.
Forlag
Frontiers Media
Sitering
Håheim, Kondratyev T.V., Dietrichs, Tveita. Comparison between two pharmacologic strategies to alleviate rewarming shock: vasodilation vs. inodilation. Frontiers in medicine. 2020
Metadata
Vis full innførsel
Samlinger
  • Artikler, rapporter og annet (klinisk medisin) [1974]
Copyright 2020 The Author(s)

Bla

Bla i hele MuninEnheter og samlingerForfatterlisteTittelDatoBla i denne samlingenForfatterlisteTittelDato
Logg inn

Statistikk

Antall visninger
UiT

Munin bygger på DSpace

UiT Norges Arktiske Universitet
Universitetsbiblioteket
uit.no/ub - munin@ub.uit.no

Tilgjengelighetserklæring