论文部分内容阅读
目的 评价络萨坦对大鼠急性心肌梗死 (AMI)左室重构的防治作用。方法 AMI雌性SD大鼠 41只随机分成AMI组 (n =19)和络萨坦〔3mg/ (kg·d)〕组 (n =2 2 ) ,另设正常组 (n =10 )和假手术组 (n =10 )作对照。络萨坦以直接灌胃给予 ,4周后各组均行血流动力学测定、心脏标本固定和病理分析。去除梗死面积 <35 %或 >45 %的大鼠 ,最终分组为AMI组 (n =11)、络萨坦组 (n =10 )、假手术组 (n =6 )和正常组 (n =8) 4组。结果 各指标在假手术与正常组间均无显著差异 (P均 >0 0 5 ) ;梗死面积在AMI和络萨坦组间也无显著差异 (4 3 4%对 42 9% ,P >0 0 5 )。与假手术组相比 ,AMI组左室 (LV)舒张末压(LVEDP)、容积 (LVV)及实际 (LVAW)和相对重量 (LVRW)均显著增加 (P <0 0 1～ 0 0 0 1) ;而左室内压最大上升和下降速率 (±dp/dt)及其LV收缩压 (LVSP)的校正值 (±dp/dt/LVSP)均显著降低 (P <0 0 5～ 0 0 0 1)。与AMI组相比 ,络萨坦组的LVEDP显著降低〔10 5mmHg对 18 7mmHg ,(1mmHg =0 133kPa) ,P <0 0 1〕 ,LVV显著减小 (0 6 2ml对 0 75ml,P <0 0 5 ) ,LVAW和LVRW均显著减轻 (LVAW :6 13 5mg对 6 79 9mg ;LVRW :1 97mg/g对 2 5 2mg/g,P均 <0 0 5 ) ;而 +dp/dt/LVSP也显著增加(4 4 8对 38 8,P <0 0 1)?
Objective To evaluate the preventive and therapeutic effects of loxane on left ventricular remodeling in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in rats. Methods 41 AMI female SD rats were randomly divided into AMI group (n = 19) and loxan (3 mg / (kg · d)] group (n = 2 2) Group (n = 10) as a control. Loseacon was given by intragastric administration. After 4 weeks, hemodynamics, heart specimen fixation and pathological analysis were performed. The rats in the infarction area <35% or> 45% were removed and divided into AMI group (n = 11), loxatan group (n = 10), sham operation group (n = 6) and normal group ) 4 groups. Results There was no significant difference between the sham-operated group and the normal group (P> 0.05). There was no significant difference in infarct size between AMI and lsatan groups (43.4% vs. 42.9%, P> 0 0 5). LVEDP, LVV, LVAW and LVRW in AMI group were significantly higher than those in sham operation group (P <0.01-0.001) ); And the values of ± dp / dt and ± LVp / ± dp / dt were all significantly lower (P <0.05-0.001) ). Compared with AMI group, LVEDP was significantly lower in loxatan group (10 5 mmHg vs. 18 7 mmHg, 1 mmHg = 0 133 kPa, P 0 01), and LVV was significantly reduced (0 6 2 ml vs 0 75 ml, P 0 LVAW and LVRW were significantly reduced (LVAW: 6 13 5 mg versus 6 79 9 mg; LVRW: 97 7 mg / g vs 252 mg / g, P all <0 05); and + dp / dt / LVSP (4 4 8 vs 38 8, P <0.01)?