This is an author produced version of a paper published in Intensive care medicine. This paper has been peerreviewed but does not include the final publisher proofcorrections or journal pagination.Citation for the published paper: Dubniks M, Persson J, Grände PO. "Effect of blood pressure on plasma volume loss in the rat under increased permeability" Intensive care medicine, 2007, Vol: 33, Issue: 12, pp. 2192 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-007-0756-2Access to the published version may require journal subscription. Published with permission from: Springer Verlag Design: Prospective randomised laboratory study.Subject: Forty-five adult male Sprague-Dawley rats.Interventions: Permeability was increased via an anaphylactic reaction by injection of 0.5 ml dextran 70. One hour later, volume expansion with 15 ml/kg of 5% albumin was given for 15 min.Plasma volume was measured just before and 2.5 hours after the albumin infusion ( 125 I-albumin tracer technique). The study included a control group, a noradrenalin group and a metoprolol/clonidine group (n=10 in each group). The vasoactive treatment started after albumin infusion and continued throughout the experiment. Plasma volume was also measured in a separate group without albumin infusion, to evaluate the effect of noradrenalin-induced increase in blood pressure under hypovolemia (n=9). CVP was measured to estimate the venous pressure effect of noradrenalin (n=6). Results:The remaining increase in plasma volume 2.5 h after infusion of 15 ml/kg of albumin was 11.8 ± 3.6 ml/kg in the control group compared with 0.5 ± 6.3 ml/kg in the noradrenalin group (p < 0.001) and with 12.5 ± 4.9 ml/kg in the metoprolol/clonidine group (ns). The reduction in plasma volume by noradrenalin infusion was much smaller in the group not given albumin, or 3.5 ± 3.0 ml/kg. Conclusion:Noradrenalin infusion increases the loss of plasma volume during a state of increased permeability which, according to the 2-pore theory of transvascular fluid exchange, may be explained by increased hydrostatic capillary pressure. The loss was less pronounced in hypovolemia.3
After hemorrhage, the PV-expanding capacity of 6% dextran 70 was better than that of 5% albumin, which was in turn better than that of HES 130/0.4 given in equal volumes.
Objective: To compare the colloids 5% albumin, 4% gelatine, and 6% HES 130/0.4 with one another, and with saline, regarding their plasma expanding effects at increased permeability, and to compare the results with those from a previous study at normal permeability.Design: Prospective controlled randomised laboratory study.Setting: University research laboratory.Subjects: 48 adult male Sprague-Dawly rats.Interventions: Permeability was increased by an injection of 0.5 ml dextran 70 using the fact that dextran causes anaphylactic reaction in the rat. Plasma volume was determined ( 125 I albumin tracer technique) after anaesthesia, 1 h after the dextran injection (before infusion for 10-15 min of 20 ml/kg bw of each of the colloids or 80 ml/kg of saline), and 3 h later. Blood pressure, haematocrit, blood gases and electrolytes were measured. CVP was measured in 4 rats. Measurements and results:Plasma volume was 41.1±1.9 ml/kg at baseline (n=9), and 29.1±4.1 ml/kg (n=35) 1 h after the dextran injection (p<0.05). Three hours after infusion of the plasma expander, plasma volume had increased by 17.1±3.4 ml/kg in the albumin group, by 7.9±3.6 ml/kg in the gelatine group, by 7.4±4.4 ml/kg in the HES group, and by 12.2±3.1 ml/kg in the saline group. It was unchanged in a control group given no solution (n=7 for all groups) (Means ± SD). Conclusion:Albumin was a more effective plasma volume expander than gelatine or HES or saline (p<0.05), which were equally effective. All solutions showed a smaller plasma expanding effect than observed in a previous study with normal permeability.3
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.