The Journal of surgical research · 2018
Slow as Compared to Rapid Rewarming After Mild Hypothermia Improves Survival in Experimental Shock.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Burggraf Manuel, Lendemans Sven, Waack Indra Naemi, Teloh Johanna Katharina, Effenberger-Neidnicht Katharina, Jäger Marcus, Rohrig Ricarda
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Accidental hypothermia following trauma is an independent risk factor for mortality. However, in most experimental studies, hypothermia clearly improves outcome. We hypothesized that slow rewarming is beneficial over rapid rewarming following mild hypothermia in a rodent model of hemorrhagic shock.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We subjected 32 male Wistar rats to severe hemorrhagic shock (25-30 mmHg for 30 min). Rats were assigned to four experimental groups (normothermia, hypothermia, rapid rewarming [RW], and slow RW). During induction of severe shock, all but the normothermia group were cooled to 34°C. After 60 min of shock, rats were resuscitated with Ringer's solution. The two RW groups were rewarmed at differing rates (6°C/h versus 2°C/h).
RESULTS: Slow RW animals exhibit a significantly prolonged survival compared with the rapid RW animals (P < 0.05). Nevertheless, hypothermic animals show a significant survival benefit as compared to all other experimental groups. Whereas seven animals of the hypothermia group survived to the end of the experiment, none of the other animals did (P < 0.001). No significant differences were found regarding acid base status, metabolism, parameters of organ injury, and coagulation.
CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that even slow RW with 2°C/h may be still too fast in the setting of experimental hemorrhage. Too rapid rewarming may result in a loss of the protective effects of hypothermia. As rewarming is ultimately inevitable in patients with trauma, potential effects of rewarming on patient outcome should be further investigated in clinical studies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We subjected 32 male Wistar rats to severe hemorrhagic shock (25-30 mmHg for 30 min). Rats were assigned to four experimental groups (normothermia, hypothermia, rapid rewarming [RW], and slow RW). During induction of severe shock, all but the normothermia group were cooled to 34°C. After 60 min of shock, rats were resuscitated with Ringer's solution. The two RW groups were rewarmed at differing rates (6°C/h versus 2°C/h).
RESULTS: Slow RW animals exhibit a significantly prolonged survival compared with the rapid RW animals (P < 0.05). Nevertheless, hypothermic animals show a significant survival benefit as compared to all other experimental groups. Whereas seven animals of the hypothermia group survived to the end of the experiment, none of the other animals did (P < 0.001). No significant differences were found regarding acid base status, metabolism, parameters of organ injury, and coagulation.
CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that even slow RW with 2°C/h may be still too fast in the setting of experimental hemorrhage. Too rapid rewarming may result in a loss of the protective effects of hypothermia. As rewarming is ultimately inevitable in patients with trauma, potential effects of rewarming on patient outcome should be further investigated in clinical studies.