本文選題：右美托咪定　切入點(diǎn)：缺血預(yù)處理　出處：《石河子大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：目的:探討右美托咪定聯(lián)合缺血預(yù)處理對(duì)大鼠肝缺血再灌注損傷的作用及可能機(jī)制。方法:60只健康雄性清潔型SD大鼠,體重(251±18)g,按隨機(jī)數(shù)字表法分為五組(n=12):假手術(shù)組(S組)、缺血再灌注組(IR組)、右美托咪定預(yù)處理組(Dex組)、缺血預(yù)處理組(IP組)和右美托咪定聯(lián)合缺血預(yù)處理組(Dex+IP組)。采用Pringle法分別建立大鼠肝臟缺血再灌注模型,測(cè)定肝臟缺血30min再灌注6h后血清中ALT、AST、LDH、TNF-α的濃度。取肝臟組織,通過HE染色觀察其病理學(xué)改變,TUNEL檢測(cè)肝臟組織中細(xì)胞凋亡數(shù)量,免疫組化測(cè)定肝臟組織血紅素氧合酶-1(heme oxygenase-1,HO-1)的表達(dá)。結(jié)果:與S組相比,其余各組血清中ALT、AST、LDH及TNF-α濃度明顯增高(P0.01);與IR組相比,Dex、IP及Dex+IP組明顯降低(P0.01);Dex+IP組明顯低于Dex組及IP組(P0.01)。ALT、AST及TNF-α濃度在Dex組與IP組之間無明顯差異(P0.05),LDH濃度在Dex組明顯低于IP組(P0.01)。肝組織病理學(xué)評(píng)分IR、Dex、IP及Dex+IP組明顯高于S組(P0.01),Dex、IP及Dex+IP組明顯低于IR組(P0.01),Dex+IP組明顯低于Dex、IP組(P0.01),Dex組與IP組之間未見明顯差異(P0.05)。肝細(xì)胞凋亡指數(shù)IR、Dex、IP及Dex+IP組明顯高于S組(P0.01),Dex、IP及Dex+IP組明顯低于IR組(P0.01),Dex+IP組明顯低于Dex、IP組(P0.01),Dex組與IP組之間未見明顯差異(P0.05)。HO-1評(píng)分,與S組相比,IR組增高(P0.05),Dex、IP及Dex+IP組明顯增高(P0.01);與IR組相比,Dex及IP組增高(P0.05),Dex+IP組明顯增高(P0.01);Dex+IP組高于Dex及IP組(P0.05);Dex與IP組之間未見明顯差異(P0.05)。結(jié)論:右美托咪定及缺血預(yù)處理對(duì)大鼠肝缺血再灌注損傷均有保護(hù)作用,兩者聯(lián)合應(yīng)用效果更好,其作用均與誘導(dǎo)HO-1的表達(dá)有一定關(guān)系。
[Abstract]:Objective: to investigate the effect and possible mechanism of dexmetomidine combined with ischemic preconditioning on hepatic ischemia-reperfusion injury in rats. The body weight was 251 鹵18g. According to the random number table, the rats were divided into five groups: sham operation group (S group), ischemia reperfusion group (IR group), dexmetomidine preconditioning group (Dex group), ischemic preconditioning group (IP group) and dexmetomidine combined with ischemic preconditioning group (Dex IP group). Rat liver ischemia-reperfusion models were established by Pringle method. The concentration of ALT ASTX LDH TNF- 偽 in serum was measured after 30 min of hepatic ischemia and reperfusion for 6 h. The pathological changes of liver tissue were observed by HE staining and Tunel was used to detect the number of apoptosis in liver tissue. Immunohistochemistry was used to determine the expression of heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1) in liver tissue. Results: compared with group S, the expression of heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1) was detected by immunohistochemistry. The levels of LDH and TNF- 偽 in serum of other groups were significantly higher than those of IR group (P 0.01), compared with IR group, the levels of TNF- 偽 and LDH in Dex group were significantly lower than those in Dex group and IP group. There was no significant difference between Dex group and IP group in the level of LDH and TNF- 偽. The level of LDH in Dex group was significantly lower than that in Dex group and IP group, and the level of TNF- 偽 in Dex group was significantly lower than that in Dex group and IP group (P < 0.05), and there was no significant difference between Dex group and IP group in the concentration of LDH and TNF- 偽. The hepatic histopathology scores in IP group were significantly higher than those in S group (P 0.01) and Dex IP group (P 0.01). There was no significant difference in hepatic histopathology between IP group and IP group. There was no significant difference in hepatocyte apoptosis index between Dex IP group and Dex IP group. It was significantly higher than that in group S (P 0.01) and group Dex IP (P 0.01). There was no significant difference between the two groups (P 0.05). HO-1 score was significantly lower in Dex IP group than that in P0.01DX IP group (P 0.01) and IP group (P < 0.05), and there was no significant difference between the two groups in the scores of P0.05 and HO-1, and there was no significant difference between the two groups. Compared with S group, the levels of P0.05Dexus IP and Dex IP were significantly higher in IR group than those in IR group, and the levels of P0.05 + Dexus IP and Dex IP were significantly higher than those in Dex and IP group. Conclusion: there is no significant difference between P0.05Dex and IP group. Conclusion: there is no significant difference between P0.05Dex group and IP group. Conclusion: compared with IR group and IP group, there is no significant difference between P0.05Dex group and IP group. Conclusion: there is no significant difference between the two groups. Conclusion: there is no significant difference between P0.05Dex group and IP group. Preconditioning had protective effects on hepatic ischemia-reperfusion injury in rats. The effect of the combined treatment was better, and the effect was related to the induction of HO-1 expression.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：石河子大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：R614

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前6條

1 ;Biliary tract injury caused by different relative warm ischemia time in liver transplantation in rats[J];Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Diseases International;2009年03期

2 孫凱,劉志蘇,孫權(quán);缺血后處理對(duì)肝臟缺血再灌注損傷的保護(hù)作用[J];武漢大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(醫(yī)學(xué)版);2004年02期

3 薛聰龍;付曉光;齊志敏;;缺血后處理與缺血預(yù)處理對(duì)大鼠肝臟保護(hù)作用比較研究[J];遼寧醫(yī)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年06期

4 袁貴秀;常業(yè)恬;李李;鄒定全;魏來;;缺血后處理對(duì)兔肝臟熱缺血再灌注損傷的保護(hù)[J];中國(guó)現(xiàn)代手術(shù)學(xué)雜志;2007年02期

5 郝悅;周新民;;左旋精氨酸對(duì)大鼠肝臟缺血再灌注損傷的保護(hù)作用[J];世界華人消化雜志;2003年10期

6 劉洪珍;文先杰;楊承祥;賴曉紅;;比較異丙酚預(yù)處理及后處理對(duì)肝缺血再灌注損傷保護(hù)作用[J];中國(guó)現(xiàn)代醫(yī)學(xué)雜志;2011年20期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 蘇玲;右美托咪定預(yù)處理對(duì)大鼠在體心肌缺血再灌注損傷的影響[D];南方醫(yī)科大學(xué);2013年

，

本文編號(hào)：1581554