中国脑血管病杂志
中國腦血管病雜誌
중국뇌혈관병잡지
CHINESE JOURNAL OF CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES
2014年
6期
317-322
,共6页
王文鑫%王胜宝%束旭俊%香耀先%孙正辉%许百男
王文鑫%王勝寶%束旭俊%香耀先%孫正輝%許百男
왕문흠%왕성보%속욱준%향요선%손정휘%허백남
脑缺血%迷走神经刺激术%神经保护%体感诱发电位%大鼠
腦缺血%迷走神經刺激術%神經保護%體感誘髮電位%大鼠
뇌결혈%미주신경자격술%신경보호%체감유발전위%대서
Brain ischemia%Vagus nerve stimulation%Neuroprotection%Somatosensory evoked potential%Rats
目的：探讨迷走神经刺激( VNS)对局灶性脑缺血模型大鼠的神经保护作用。方法成年雄性SD大鼠42只,根据体质量,采用计算机法将其随机分成假手术组(10只)、模型组(16只)、VNS治疗组(16只),每组又随机平均分为刺激左、右侧迷走神经亚组。采用线栓法建立大鼠局灶性脑缺血(2 h)-再灌注模型。造模后30 min ,给予VNS治疗组大鼠颈部迷走神经刺激,刺激强度0．5 mA,间期0．5 ms,频率20 Hz,在1 h内每隔5 min刺激1次,每次持续30 s。不给予模型组大鼠刺激,对假手术组大鼠既不栓塞血管也不刺激神经。操作过程中监测损伤侧脑体感诱发电位( SEP,包括N1波幅和P1潜伏期)的变化；造模前5 min开始,造模后150 min结束。造模后24 h行神经行为学评分,处死大鼠,测定脑梗死体积。结果(1)在刺激左侧迷走神经的大鼠中,假手术组、模型组及VNS治疗组的神经行为学评分分别为(0．4±0．2)、(9．5±0．4)及(6．4±0．3)分；在刺激右侧迷走神经的大鼠中,3组的神经行为学评分分别为(0．6±0．2)、(9．3±0．4)和(6．9±0．4)分。模型组的评分与其他两组比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0．05)。(2)与模型组相比,VNS治疗组的脑梗死体积减少[刺激左侧迷走神经分别为(120±7)、(56±7) mm3；刺激右侧迷走神经分别为(115±10)、(54±8) mm3],差异有统计学意义(P<0．05)。(3)与假手术组和VNS组比较,模型组的SEP波形中的N1波幅下降、P1潜伏期延长,差异有统计学意义( P值均<0．05)；(4) VNS治疗组中刺激左、右侧迷走神经,在脑梗死体积、神经行为学评分、SEP波形中的N1波幅和P1潜伏期上差异均无统计学意义(P>0．05)。结论无论是刺激左侧还是右侧迷走神经,对缺血性脑损伤都具有神经保护作用,且在作用效果上无明显差别。
目的：探討迷走神經刺激( VNS)對跼竈性腦缺血模型大鼠的神經保護作用。方法成年雄性SD大鼠42隻,根據體質量,採用計算機法將其隨機分成假手術組(10隻)、模型組(16隻)、VNS治療組(16隻),每組又隨機平均分為刺激左、右側迷走神經亞組。採用線栓法建立大鼠跼竈性腦缺血(2 h)-再灌註模型。造模後30 min ,給予VNS治療組大鼠頸部迷走神經刺激,刺激彊度0．5 mA,間期0．5 ms,頻率20 Hz,在1 h內每隔5 min刺激1次,每次持續30 s。不給予模型組大鼠刺激,對假手術組大鼠既不栓塞血管也不刺激神經。操作過程中鑑測損傷側腦體感誘髮電位( SEP,包括N1波幅和P1潛伏期)的變化；造模前5 min開始,造模後150 min結束。造模後24 h行神經行為學評分,處死大鼠,測定腦梗死體積。結果(1)在刺激左側迷走神經的大鼠中,假手術組、模型組及VNS治療組的神經行為學評分分彆為(0．4±0．2)、(9．5±0．4)及(6．4±0．3)分；在刺激右側迷走神經的大鼠中,3組的神經行為學評分分彆為(0．6±0．2)、(9．3±0．4)和(6．9±0．4)分。模型組的評分與其他兩組比較,差異有統計學意義(P<0．05)。(2)與模型組相比,VNS治療組的腦梗死體積減少[刺激左側迷走神經分彆為(120±7)、(56±7) mm3；刺激右側迷走神經分彆為(115±10)、(54±8) mm3],差異有統計學意義(P<0．05)。(3)與假手術組和VNS組比較,模型組的SEP波形中的N1波幅下降、P1潛伏期延長,差異有統計學意義( P值均<0．05)；(4) VNS治療組中刺激左、右側迷走神經,在腦梗死體積、神經行為學評分、SEP波形中的N1波幅和P1潛伏期上差異均無統計學意義(P>0．05)。結論無論是刺激左側還是右側迷走神經,對缺血性腦損傷都具有神經保護作用,且在作用效果上無明顯差彆。
목적：탐토미주신경자격( VNS)대국조성뇌결혈모형대서적신경보호작용。방법성년웅성SD대서42지,근거체질량,채용계산궤법장기수궤분성가수술조(10지)、모형조(16지)、VNS치료조(16지),매조우수궤평균분위자격좌、우측미주신경아조。채용선전법건립대서국조성뇌결혈(2 h)-재관주모형。조모후30 min ,급여VNS치료조대서경부미주신경자격,자격강도0．5 mA,간기0．5 ms,빈솔20 Hz,재1 h내매격5 min자격1차,매차지속30 s。불급여모형조대서자격,대가수술조대서기불전새혈관야불자격신경。조작과정중감측손상측뇌체감유발전위( SEP,포괄N1파폭화P1잠복기)적변화；조모전5 min개시,조모후150 min결속。조모후24 h행신경행위학평분,처사대서,측정뇌경사체적。결과(1)재자격좌측미주신경적대서중,가수술조、모형조급VNS치료조적신경행위학평분분별위(0．4±0．2)、(9．5±0．4)급(6．4±0．3)분；재자격우측미주신경적대서중,3조적신경행위학평분분별위(0．6±0．2)、(9．3±0．4)화(6．9±0．4)분。모형조적평분여기타량조비교,차이유통계학의의(P<0．05)。(2)여모형조상비,VNS치료조적뇌경사체적감소[자격좌측미주신경분별위(120±7)、(56±7) mm3；자격우측미주신경분별위(115±10)、(54±8) mm3],차이유통계학의의(P<0．05)。(3)여가수술조화VNS조비교,모형조적SEP파형중적N1파폭하강、P1잠복기연장,차이유통계학의의( P치균<0．05)；(4) VNS치료조중자격좌、우측미주신경,재뇌경사체적、신경행위학평분、SEP파형중적N1파폭화P1잠복기상차이균무통계학의의(P>0．05)。결론무론시자격좌측환시우측미주신경,대결혈성뇌손상도구유신경보호작용,차재작용효과상무명현차별。
Objective To investigate the neuroprotective effect of vagus nerve stimulation ( VNS) on a model rat of focal cerebral ischemia. Methods A total of 42 adult male Sprague-Dawle ( SD) rats were randomly divided into a sham operation group (n=10),a model group (n=16),and a VNS-treated group ( n = 16 ) . Each group was randomly redivided into 2 subgroups:left VNS subgroup and right VNS subgroup. A model of focal cerebral ischemia (2 h) in rats was induced by the intraluminal suture method. At 30 minutes after modeling, the VNS-treated group received cervical VNS, the stimulation intensity was 0. 5 mA,the interval was 0. 5 ms,and the frequency was 20 Hz. Stimulation was once every 5 min within 1 h and each lasted for 30 s. The model group did not give any stimulation. Neither blood vessels were embolized nor were the nerves stimulated in the sham operation group. The changes of somatosensory evoked potentials ( SEP) on the lesion sides during operation were monitored. At 24 h after modeling,the neurobehavioral scores were performed. The rats were sacrificed,and their brain infarct volume was measured. Results (1) During the stimulation of left VNS in rats,the neurobehavioral scores of the sham operation group,model group and VNS-treated group were 0. 4 ± 0. 2,9. 5 ± 0. 4,6. 4 ± 0. 3,respectively;during the stimulation of right VNS in rats,the neurobehavioral scores of the 3 groups were 0. 6 ± 0. 2,9. 3 ± 0. 4,and 6. 9 ± 0. 4,respectively. There were significant differences between the scores of the model group and those of the other 2 groups (P<0. 05). (2) Compared with the model group,the brain infarct volume of the VNS-treated group was reduced ( stimulating the left VNS of the 2 groups was 120 ± 7 and 56 ± 7 mm3 respectively;stimulating the right VNS was 115 ± 10 and 54 ± 8 mm3 respectively ) . There were significant differences ( P <0. 05). (3) Compared with the sham operation group and the VNS-treated group,the SEP N1 amplitude of the model group was decreased significantly and the P1 latency was prolonged significantly. There was significant difference (P<0. 05). (4) There were no significant differences in the stimulation of the left or right VNS in the VNS-treated group among the infarct volume, neurobehavioral scores, SEP amplitude,and latency (P>0. 05). Conclusion No matter whether to stimulate the left or right vagus nerves, they both have neuroprotective effects on ischemic brain injury, and there was no significant difference on the action effects.
