Acute rosiglitazone treatment during reperfusion after hyperglycemic stroke is neuroprotective not vascular protective.
Acute rosiglitazone treatment during reperfusion after hyperglycemic stroke is neuroprotective not vascular protective.
复制标题
高血糖卒中后再灌注期间的急性罗格列酮治疗具有神经保护作用，而非血管保护作用。
DOI：
10.1007/s12975-012-0190-9
复制
发表时间：
2012
影响因子：
6.9
通讯作者：
Cipolla,MarilynJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Palomares,SaraMorales;Sweet,JulieG;Cipolla,MarilynJ
Reperfusion therapy for ischemic stroke can cause secondary brain injury, especially under hyperglycemic (HG) conditions. Here, we investigated the effect of acute treatment with rosiglitazone, a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma (PPAR-γ) agonist, prior to postischemic reperfusion, on stroke outcome during HG stroke. Male Wistar rats that were either normoglycemic (NG) or HG by STZ (50 mg/kg; for 5–6 days) underwent middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) for 2 h with 2 h of reperfusion. Animals were treated i.v. with rosiglitazone (1 mg/kg;n= 16), rosiglitazone (1 mg/kg) + the free radical scavenger Tempol (50 mg/kg;n= 10) or vehicle (n= 16) 10 min prior to reperfusion and infarct volume, edema formation, and cerebral blood flow (CBF) were measured. Compared to NG, HG stroke significantly increased infarct volume from 5.2 ± 3.0 % vs. 14.7 ± 3.6 % (p< 0.05). Rosiglitazone prevented the increased infarct volume induced by HG that was only 6.9 ± 2.0 % (p< 0.05 vs. HG) but did not have any effect on edema formation that was increased by 3.0 % in both HG vehicle and rosiglitazone-treated ipsilateral vs. contralateral hemispheres (p< 0.05). Combined treatment of rosiglitazone + Tempol did not significantly change brain water content that remained 2.2 % greater than contralateral (p< 0.05) but reversed the neuroprotective properties of rosiglitazone in HG MCAO animals such that infarct volume was 14.3 ± 4.4 % (p> 0.05 vs. vehicle). The lack of an effect of combined treatment of rosiglitazone + Temple may be due to a decrease in reperfusion CBF that was only 60 % of baseline (p< 0.01) compared to 82 % and 89 % for HG vehicle and rosiglitazone-treated animals (p> 0.05). In conclusion, acute rosiglitazone treatment prior reperfusion was neuroprotective but not vascular protective during HG stroke.
