|
Currently electrical burns study, has been observed in animals after HEB deep fascia, the soft meninges, gastric, intestinal mucosa, mesentery, liver, renal cortex and other parts of the microcirculation occurs. Microvascular functional changes occur in the microcirculation plays a crucial role. Angiotensin Ⅱ (angiotensin-Ⅱ, Ang-Ⅱ) can act on vascular smooth muscle contraction of the blood vessels strong, while affecting vascular endothelial cell NO and other vasodilator factor that regulates vascular function changes; vascular cell adhesion molecule -1 (soluble Vascular Cell Adhesion Molecule-1, sVCAM-1) formation and activation of endothelial cells, vascular endothelial cells may reflect the extent of injury. Therefore the design of this experiment to observe changes in both investigate the mechanism of high-voltage microcirculation after burn. Objective: To detect HEB before and after the intervention and pentoxifylline treatment serum Ang-Ⅱ and sVCAM-1 concentrations, and to explore the early HEB mechanism of microcirculation. Methods: A randomized factorial design unit group. 180 healthy adult SD rats, male or female, females not pregnant, weight 320g ~ 380g. HEB randomly divided into three groups (control group), HEB group (shock group) and high voltage burn pentoxifylline intervention group (treatment group), respectively, in HEB before 1 h, HEB or administered immediately (15 min), HEB after 1 h, 2 h, 4 h, 8 h (respectively recorded as T0, T1, T2, T3, T4, T5) 6 个 phase blood serum Ang-Ⅱ and VCAM-1 levels, each phase 10 SD rats. 1% solution of sodium pentobarbital (45mg/kg dose) anesthetized by intraperitoneal injection, rats were anesthetized after successful left forelimb and right hind limb and chest, abdomen, skin preparation, hair removal, hair removal is completed then the rats were fixed on the insulation supine position stage, and properly connected to the line, the left forelimb as \Tune rated voltage up to 2KV, energized 3s, current intensity of 1.83 ± 0.15A. Shock instantly, showing that rats convulsions, stiffness, power immediately after the rats were proper chest compressions to ensure rat heart and lung function. Shock seen after \Treated rats, immediately after power failure (1 min), intraperitoneal injection of 1% pentoxifylline sodium chloride injection (50mg/Kg dose) [10-14]; shock group and the control group injected with normal saline. Control group using electrical methods produce false false model of electrical burns. False Power Method: 380V power supply is disconnected before the experiment to ensure that no current flows through the circuit, and the remaining group of electric shock burns the same model replication method. Blood collection method: Open the chest to expose the heart under direct vision from the apical puncture blood 8ml ~ 10ml, points placed PE tube. Room temperature for 30min, until blood clotting to 1000 × g 15min centrifugation, serum was collected, placed in ultra-low temperature freezer -70 ℃ cryopreservation stand. With Ang-Ⅱ ELSIA kits and sVCAM-1 ELSIA kit according to the instructions required for testing, measuring absorbance microplate reader. The data for the measurement data, the data used as x ± s, application SPSS13.0 statistical package, using a random unit group factorial design analysis of variance at different times, the main effect of treatment and interaction effects analysis (interaction with interactive contour map) . Univariate analysis of variance for all time, a separate analysis of the effects processing, multiple comparisons using the SNK method. To P lt; 0.05 significance level was significant. Results: 1 Ang-Ⅱ test results 1.1 Ang-Ⅱ interaction effect is not the same test results 1.1.1 test results relative to a significant difference between (P lt; 0.05), T0 T1 phase test results no significant difference ( P gt; 0.05), T2 T3 T4 phase test results no significant difference (P gt; 0.05), T3 T4 T5-phase test results no significant difference (P gt; 0.05), the rest either two o'clock There were significant differences between phases (P lt; 0.05). 1.1.2 test results between different groups had significant difference (P lt; 0.05), electric shock treatment group between test results between the two groups was no significant difference (P gt; 0.05), the rest were either between the two groups significant difference (P lt; 0.05). 1.1.3 Shock and time for Ang-Ⅱ test results there was an interaction, the interaction of the test results was significant difference between (P lt; 0.05). 1.2 Ang-Ⅱ separate effect test results 1.2.1 Ang-Ⅱ group phase of the test results when pairwise comparisons: 1.2.1.1 Control group: the group phase concentration values ??each time the overall no significant difference (P gt; 0.05) 1.2.1.2 shock group: Except when T0 T1 phase concentration values ??showed no significant difference (P gt; 0.05), T3, T2, T5, T4 concentrations when white was no significant difference (P gt; 0.05), any remaining between the two groups were significantly different (P lt; 0.05) 1.2.1.3 treatment groups: In addition to T0 T2 T1 phase when concentrations showed no significant difference (P gt; 0.05), T2 T1 T4 concentration values ??when there were no white significant difference (P gt; 0.05), T4T3 when phase concentrations showed no significant difference (P gt; 0.05), T3 T5 when phase concentrations showed no significant difference (P gt; 0.05), remaining between any two groups There were significant differences (P lt; 0.05) 1.2.2 Ang-Ⅱ test results between the two groups at the same relative phase 1.2.2.1 T0: control group, shock treatment group among the 3 groups showed no significant concentration values difference (P gt; 0.05) 1.2.2.2 T1 phase: control group, shock group between the concentration values ??showed no significant difference (P gt; 0.05); any remaining between the two groups were significantly different (P lt ; 0.05) 1.2.2.3 T4 comparison between any two groups were significantly different (P lt; 0.05) 1.2.2.4 T3 T5 phase electric shock treatment group concentration values ??between the two groups showed no significant difference (P gt; 0.05) ; the rest either between the two groups were significantly different (P lt; 0.05) 2 sVCAM-1 test results 2.1 sVCAM-1 interaction is not the same test results 2.1.1 test results relative to a significant difference between (P lt; 0.05), T4 T5-phase test results no significant difference (P gt; 0.05), T5 T1 T3 phase test results no significant difference (P gt; 0.05), the remaining phases of any two o'clock significantly difference (P lt; 0.05). 2.1.2 The test results between different groups had significant difference (P lt; 0.05), either between the two groups were significantly different (P lt; 0.05). 2.1.3 Shock and time for Ang-Ⅱ test results there was an interaction, the interaction of the test results was significant difference between (P lt; 0.05). 2.2 sVCAM-1 separate effect test results 2.2.1sVCAM-1 group at each time phase detection results pairwise comparison 2.2.1.1 Control group: group concentration values ??of each phase showed no significant difference (P gt; 0.05) 2.2. 1.2 shock group: Except when T5 T1 phase concentration showed no significant difference (P gt; 0.05), T1 T4 T3 concentration when white was no significant difference (P gt; 0.05), the rest were either between the two groups significant difference (P lt; 0.05) 2.2.1.3 treatment groups: In addition to T0 T4 when phase concentrations showed no significant difference (P gt; 0.05), T5, T3, T2, T1 when the phase concentrations showed no significant difference (P gt; 0.05), the rest either between the two groups were significantly different (P lt; 0.05) 2.2.2 sVCAM-1 test results, while the phase comparison between groups 2.2.2.1 T0 phase: control group, shock group the treatment group concentration values ??among the 3 groups showed no significant difference (P gt; 0.05) 2.2.2.2 T1, T2, T3, T5 phase: comparison between any two groups were significantly different (P lt; 0.05) Conclusion : an early experiments HEB serum Ang-Ⅱ and sVCAM-1 levels were significantly increased as a reference indicator organism occur microcirculation. 2 pentoxifylline treatment can reduce the high voltage burn serum Ang-Ⅱ content, while Ang-Ⅱ content in tandem with prolonged decrease. After three HEB serum sVCAM-1 levels may to some extent reflect changes pentoxifylline improve the microcirculation effect.
|