Comparison of two experimental models of pulmonary hypertension

6Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objective: To compare two models of pulmonary hypertension (monocrotaline and monocrotaline+pneumonectomy) regarding hemodynamic severity, structure of pulmonary arteries, inflammatory markers (IL-1 and PDGF), and 45-day survival. Methods: We used 80 Sprague-Dawley rats in two study protocols: structural analysis; and survival analysis. The rats were divided into four groups: control; monocrotaline (M), pneumonectomy (P), and monocrotaline+pneumonectomy (M+P). In the structural analysis protocol, 40 rats (10/group) were catheterized for the determination of hemodynamic variables, followed by euthanasia for the removal of heart and lung tissue. The right ventricle (RV) was dissected from the interventricular septum (IS), and the ratio between RV weight and the weight of the left ventricle (LV) plus IS (RV/LV+IS) was taken as the index of RV hypertrophy. In lung tissues, we performed histological analyses, as well as using ELISA to determine IL-1 and PDGF levels. In the survival protocol, 40 animals (10/group) were followed for 45 days. Results: The M and M+P rats developed pulmonary hypertension, whereas the control and P rats did not. The RV/LV+IS ratio was significantly higher in M+P rats than in M rats, as well as being significantly higher in M and M+P rats than in control and P rats. There were no significant differences between the M and M+P rats regarding the area of the medial layer of the pulmonary arteries; IL-1 and PDGF levels; or survival. Conclusions: On the basis of our results, we cannot conclude that the monocrotaline+pneumonectomy model is superior to the monocrotaline model.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Polonio, I. B., Acencio, M. M. P., Pazetti, R., de Almeida, F. M., Canzian, M., da Silva, B. S., … de Souza, R. (2012). Comparison of two experimental models of pulmonary hypertension. Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia, 38(4), 452–460. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1806-37132012000400007

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free