Comparison of brain injuries in rat cardiac arrest models induced by asphyxia and electrical stimulation
10.3760/cma.j.cn121430-20200302-00204
- VernacularTitle:窒息法与电刺激法诱发的心搏骤停大鼠模型脑损伤比较
- Author:
Liping LU
1
;
Yingtao LIAN
;
Song XU
;
Zhui YU
Author Information
1. 武汉大学人民医院重症医学科，武汉 430060
- From:
Chinese Critical Care Medicine
2020;32(3):336-340
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the severity of brain injury between asphyxia and electrical stimulation induced cardiac arrest in rats.Methods:Forty-two healthy male Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats were randomized into sham group ( n = 6), asphyxia group ( n = 18) and electrical stimulation group ( n = 18). Rats in each group were given invasive mechanical ventilation and femoral blood vessels catheterization for monitoring blood pressure and fluid infusion. In the asphyxia group, the tracheal tube was clamped to induce cardiac arrest, and in the electrical stimulation group, the esophageal electrical stimulation was used to induce cardiac arrest, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was performed 4 minutes after cardiac arrest. In the sham group, only tracheal intubation and femoral artery intubation were performed after anesthesia, but cardiac arrest was not induced. Animals were allowed to survive until 72 hours after resuscitation, and survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves. At 24 hours and 72 hours after resuscitation, the neurological deficit score (NDS) was measured. The vena cava blood was collected, and the brain injury associated serum biomarkers, neuron-specific enolase (NSE) and S100B, were detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The brain tissues were then harvested to perform hematoxylin-eosin (HE) staining for observing pathological changes in the hippocampal CA1 area with light microscopy. Results:Cardiac arrest was successfully induced in both the asphyxia group and the electrical stimulation group, 94.4% (17/18) and 88.9% (16/18) animals were resuscitated successfully in the two groups respectively. Kaplan-Meier curves analysis showed that 72-hour cumulative survival rate was similar in the asphyxia group and the electrical stimulation group (Log-Rank test: χ2 = 0.040, P = 0.841). Both asphyxia group and electrical stimulation group had higher NDS score than sham group at 24 hours after resuscitation (37.50±4.26, 32.17±4.02 vs. 8.33±2.33, both P < 0.01). NDS score showed a downwards trend at 72 hours after resuscitation in both model groups, and the decline was more significant in the electrical stimulation group, which was significantly different as compared with asphyxia group (14.00±2.89 vs. 26.33±4.84, P < 0.05). ELISA results showed that the levels of serum NSE at 24 hours after resuscitation in the asphyxia and electrical stimulation groups were significantly higher than those in the sham group (μg/L: 1.02±0.07, 1.02±0.02 vs. 0.87±0.02, both P < 0.05). NSE kept increasing at 72 hours after resuscitation in the asphyxia group, which showed significant difference as compared with sham group (μg/L: 1.03±0.05 vs. 0.87±0.02, P < 0.01). But it had almost recovered to the normal level in the electrical stimulation group without significant difference as compared with sham group (μg/L: 0.96±0.04 vs. 0.87±0.02, P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in S100B level at different time points after resuscitation among three groups. It was displayed under light microscope that there was no significant neuronal damage in the hippocampal CA1 area in the two model groups at 24 hours after resuscitation as compared with the sham group. At 72 hours, there were certain damages in the hippocampal CA1 area in both model groups, which were more obvious in the asphyxia group. Conclusions:Both cardiac arrest models induced by asphyxia and electrical stimulation show a certain degree of brain injuries after resuscitation. Brain injuries are more severe in asphyxia-induced cardiac arrest compared with trans-esophageal electrical stimulation method.
