论文部分内容阅读
目的 观察高频振荡通气 (HFO)联合一氧化氮 (NO)吸入疗法对急性肺损伤 (ALI)大鼠气体交换、血流动力学参数及血中高铁血红蛋白 (MetHb)含量的影响 ,并与常规机械通气 (CMV)、CMV +NO、HFO等通气方式作比较。同时观察此疗法是否可取得较为稳定的NO输送浓度。 方法选择健康雄性Wistar大鼠 32只 ,应用油酸制作ALI模型 ,稳定 30min后 ,随机分为四组 :CMV组、CMV+NO组、HFO组、HFO +NO组。所有大鼠在基础状态、治疗 0 5h、治疗 1h记录气体交换、血流动力学参数。每组各有 4只在NO吸入前后测量血中MetHb含量。实验中用化学发光法持续监测NO的输送浓度。结果 各组大鼠基础状态时各指标差异无显著性 (P >0 0 5 )。治疗 1h后 ,HFO +NO组氧分压 [(2 13± 7)mmHg]较CMV、CMV +NO、HFO组 [分别为 (10 8± 5 )mmHg、(140± 9)mmHg、(15 8± 8)mmHg]明显提高 ,分流比例 [(4 0 4± 0 15 ) %]明显降低 [(14 0 6± 0 5 9) %、(9 4 8± 0 35 ) %、(7 0 3±0 36 ) %](P均 <0 0 5 )。与各自对照组的平均肺动脉压 [(2 2 3± 2 8)mmHg、(2 2 4± 2 9)mmHg]相比 ,HFO +NO组 [(16 8± 2 9)mmHg]及CMV +NO组 [(16 9± 2 7)mmHg]均有明显降低 (P <0 0 5 ) ,但两组间的平均肺动脉压各时点差异无显著性 (P >0 0
Objective To observe the effects of high frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFO) combined with nitric oxide (NO) inhalation therapy on gas exchange, hemodynamic parameters and content of methemoglobin (HHH) in acute lung injury (ALI) rats. Mechanical ventilation (CMV), CMV + NO, HFO and other ventilation methods for comparison. At the same time observe whether this therapy can obtain a more stable concentration of NO delivery. Methods Thirty-two healthy male Wistar rats were randomly divided into four groups: CMV group, CMV + NO group, HFO group and HFO + NO group. All rats in the basic state, treatment 0 5h, treatment 1h record gas exchange, hemodynamic parameters. Four of each group measured MetHb levels in blood before and after NO inhalation. In the experiment, the concentration of NO was continuously monitored by chemiluminescence method. Results There was no significant difference in the basal state of rats in each group (P> 0.05). After 1 hour of treatment, the partial pressure of oxygen in HFO + NO group was (102 ± 5) mmHg, (140 ± 9) mmHg, (15 8 ± 5) mmHg and ± 40 mmHg], and the proportion of shunt ([4 0 4 ± 0 15]%] was significantly lower than that of the control group [(14 0 6 ± 0 5 9)%, (9 4 8 ± 0 35)%, (7 0 3 ± 0 36)%] (P <0 05). Compared with the mean pulmonary arterial pressures ([2223 ± 28] mmHg, (2224 ± 29) mmHg] in HFO + NO group and the control group, [(16 8 ± 29) mmHg] and CMV + Group [(16 9 ± 27) mmHg] (P <0.05), but there was no significant difference in mean pulmonary arterial pressure between the two groups at any time point (P> 0 0