ub.xmlui.mirage2.page-structure.muninLogoub.xmlui.mirage2.page-structure.openResearchArchiveLogo
    • EnglishEnglish
    • norsknorsk
  • Velg spraakEnglish 
    • EnglishEnglish
    • norsknorsk
  • Administration/UB
View Item 
  •   Home
  • Det helsevitenskapelige fakultet
  • Institutt for klinisk medisin
  • Artikler, rapporter og annet (klinisk medisin)
  • View Item
  •   Home
  • Det helsevitenskapelige fakultet
  • Institutt for klinisk medisin
  • Artikler, rapporter og annet (klinisk medisin)
  • View Item
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 link
https://hdl.handle.net/10037/20510
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2020.566388
Thumbnail
View/Open
article.pdf (2.668Mb)
Published version (PDF)
Date
2020-11-12
Type
Journal article
Tidsskriftartikkel
Peer reviewed

Author
Håheim, Brage; Kondratyev, Timofey; Dietrichs, Erik Sveberg; Tveita, Torkjel
Abstract
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.
Publisher
Frontiers Media
Citation
Håheim, Kondratyev T.V., Dietrichs, Tveita. Comparison between two pharmacologic strategies to alleviate rewarming shock: vasodilation vs. inodilation. Frontiers in medicine. 2020
Metadata
Show full item record
Collections
  • Artikler, rapporter og annet (klinisk medisin) [1974]
Copyright 2020 The Author(s)

Browse

Browse all of MuninCommunities & CollectionsAuthor listTitlesBy Issue DateBrowse this CollectionAuthor listTitlesBy Issue Date
Login

Statistics

View Usage Statistics
UiT

Munin is powered by DSpace

UiT The Arctic University of Norway
The University Library
uit.no/ub - munin@ub.uit.no

Accessibility statement (Norwegian only)