CCA repair or ECA ligation—Which middle cerebral artery occlusion is better in the reperfusion mouse model?

Ibrain Pub Date : 2023-08-18 DOI:10.1002/ibra.12128
Yue Hu, Zhen-Hong Yang, Feng Yan, Shuang-Feng Huang, Rong-Liang Wang, Zi-Ping Han, Jun-Fen Fan, Yang-Min Zheng, Ping Liu, Yu-Min Luo, Si-Jie Li
{"title":"CCA repair or ECA ligation—Which middle cerebral artery occlusion is better in the reperfusion mouse model?","authors":"Yue Hu,&nbsp;Zhen-Hong Yang,&nbsp;Feng Yan,&nbsp;Shuang-Feng Huang,&nbsp;Rong-Liang Wang,&nbsp;Zi-Ping Han,&nbsp;Jun-Fen Fan,&nbsp;Yang-Min Zheng,&nbsp;Ping Liu,&nbsp;Yu-Min Luo,&nbsp;Si-Jie Li","doi":"10.1002/ibra.12128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n <p>A reliable animal model is essential for ischemic stroke research. The implications of the external carotid artery (ECA) transection or common carotid artery (CCA) ligation have been described. Thus, a modified animal model, the CCA-repair model, has been established, and studies have shown that the CCA-repair model has potential advantages over the CCA-ligation model. However, whether the CCA-repair model is superior to the ECA-ligation model remains unclear. Sixty male C57BL/6 mice were randomly assigned to establish the CCA-repair (<i>n</i> = 34) or ECA-ligation (<i>n</i> = 26) models. Cerebral blood flow before middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO), immediately after MCAO and reperfusion were monitored and the operation duration, postoperative body weight, and food intake within 7 days, and the number of intraoperative and postoperative deaths within 7 days were recorded in the two models. Modified neurological severity scores and Bederson (0–5) scores were used to evaluate postoperative neurological function deficits on Days 1/3/5/7. 2,3,5-Triphenyltetrazolium chloride staining was used to quantify lesion volume on Day 7 after the operation. We found the establishment of the CCA-repair model required a longer total operation duration (<i>p</i> = 0.0175), especially the operation duration of reperfusion (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001). However, there was no significant difference in body weight and food intake development, lesion volume and intragroup variability, neurological function deficits, mortality, and survival probability between the two groups. The CCA-repair model has no significant advantage over the ECA-ligation model. The ECA-ligation model is still a better choice for focal cerebral ischemia.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":94030,"journal":{"name":"Ibrain","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ibra.12128","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ibrain","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ibra.12128","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A reliable animal model is essential for ischemic stroke research. The implications of the external carotid artery (ECA) transection or common carotid artery (CCA) ligation have been described. Thus, a modified animal model, the CCA-repair model, has been established, and studies have shown that the CCA-repair model has potential advantages over the CCA-ligation model. However, whether the CCA-repair model is superior to the ECA-ligation model remains unclear. Sixty male C57BL/6 mice were randomly assigned to establish the CCA-repair (n = 34) or ECA-ligation (n = 26) models. Cerebral blood flow before middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO), immediately after MCAO and reperfusion were monitored and the operation duration, postoperative body weight, and food intake within 7 days, and the number of intraoperative and postoperative deaths within 7 days were recorded in the two models. Modified neurological severity scores and Bederson (0–5) scores were used to evaluate postoperative neurological function deficits on Days 1/3/5/7. 2,3,5-Triphenyltetrazolium chloride staining was used to quantify lesion volume on Day 7 after the operation. We found the establishment of the CCA-repair model required a longer total operation duration (p = 0.0175), especially the operation duration of reperfusion (p < 0.0001). However, there was no significant difference in body weight and food intake development, lesion volume and intragroup variability, neurological function deficits, mortality, and survival probability between the two groups. The CCA-repair model has no significant advantage over the ECA-ligation model. The ECA-ligation model is still a better choice for focal cerebral ischemia.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
CCA修复还是ECA结扎在再灌注小鼠模型中哪种大脑中动脉闭塞更好?
一个可靠的动物模型对缺血性中风的研究至关重要。已经描述了颈外动脉(ECA)横断或颈总动脉(CCA)结扎的含义。因此,已经建立了一种改良的动物模型,即CCA修复模型,并且研究表明CCA修复模式比CCA结扎模式具有潜在的优势。然而,CCA修复模型是否优于ECA结扎模型尚不清楚。60只雄性C57BL/6小鼠被随机分配以建立CCA修复(n = 34)或ECA结扎(n = 26)模型。监测大脑中动脉闭塞(MCAO)前、MCAO和再灌注后即刻的脑血流量,并记录两个模型的手术时间、术后体重、7天内的食物摄入量以及7天内术中和术后死亡人数。在第1/3/5/7天,使用改良的神经严重程度评分和Bederson(0-5)评分来评估术后神经功能缺损。2,3,5-三苯基氯化四氮唑染色用于量化手术后第7天的病变体积。我们发现CCA修复模型的建立需要更长的总操作持续时间(p = 0.0175),尤其是再灌注的手术时间(p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Identification of immune infiltration and PANoptosis-related molecular clusters and predictive model in Alzheimer's disease based on transcriptome analysis The application of eXplainable artificial intelligence in studying cognition: A scoping review Neuroscience of cancer: Research progress and emerging of the field Calcium accumulation or iron deposition: Delving into the temporal sequence of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis pathophysiology in the primary motor cortex
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1