论文部分内容阅读
目的 :评价卡维地洛、西拉普利及其合用防治大鼠急性心肌梗死 (AMI)左室重塑 (LVRM)的作用。方法 :AMI术后 2 4h存活的 10 0只雌性SD大鼠随机分成 :①AMI对照 (n =2 5 )、②AMI+卡维地洛 (1mg·kg-1·d-1,n =2 5 )、③AMI+西拉普利 (1mg·kg-1·d-1,n =2 5 )及④AMI+合用 (n =2 5 ) 4组 ;另设假手术组 (n =17)。直接灌胃给药。4周后行血流动力学测定和病理学分析。去除梗死面积 <35 %或 >5 5 %者 ,最终在以上各组分别有 (13,12 ,12 ,14 )和13只大鼠。结果 :AMI各组间梗死面积差异均无显著性 (45 .2 % - 4 6 7% ,均P >0 0 5 )。AMI对照组的左室舒张末压(LVEDP)、容积 (LVV)、重量 (LVW)和室间隔厚度 (STh)均显著大于假手术组 (均P <0 0 1) ,左室内压最大上升和下降速率 (±dp/dt)及其校正值 (±dp/dt/LVSP)均显著低于假手术组 (P <0 0 5 ,P <0 0 1)。卡维地洛、西拉普利及合用组的LVEDP、LVV均显著低于AMI对照组 (P <0 0 1) ,STh均显著薄于AMI对照组 (P <0 0 1) ,LVW均显著轻于AMI对照组 (P <0 0 5 ,P <0 0 1) ,±dp/dt显著高于AMI对照组 (P <0 0 5 ,P <0 0 1) ,且LVEDP和STh在合用组显著低于两单用药组 (P <0 0 5 ,P <0 0 1) ,余指标在 3个用药组间差异均无显著性 (均P >0 0 5 )。结论 :?
Objective: To evaluate the effects of carvedilol and cilazapril and their combination in preventing and treating left ventricular remodeling (LVRM) in rats with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Methods: A total of 10 female SD rats surviving 24 h after AMI were randomly divided into three groups: ① AMI control (n = 25), ② AMI + carvedilol (n = 25) ③AMI + cilazapril (1mg · kg-1 · d-1, n = 25) and ④AMI + combined (n = 25) 4; another sham operation group (n = 17). Direct oral administration. Four weeks later, hemodynamics and pathology were performed. Patients with an infarct size of <35% or> 55% were removed and finally (13, 12, 12, 14) and 13 rats in each of the above groups. Results: There was no significant difference in infarct size between AMI groups (45.2% - 46.7%, all P> 0.05). Left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP), volume (LVV), weight (LVW) and interventricular septum thickness (STh) in AMI control group were significantly higher than those in sham operation group (all P <0.01) The rate (± dp / dt) and its corrected value (± dp / dt / LVSP) were significantly lower than those in sham operation group (P <0.05, P <0.01). LVEDP and LVV in carvedilol, cilazapril and combination group were significantly lower than those in AMI control group (P <0.01), STh were significantly thinner than AMI control group (P <0.01), LVW were significantly Compared with AMI control group (P <0.05, P <0.01), ± dp / dt was significantly higher than AMI control group (P <0.05, P <0.01) (P <0.05, P <0.01). There were no significant differences in the remaining indicators among the three treatment groups (all P> 0.05). in conclusion :?