Conger J D, Robinette J B, Hammond W S
University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver.
Kidney Int. 1991 Jun;39(6):1087-97. doi: 10.1038/ki.1991.138.
To determine the mechanism of observed differences in vasoreactivity in norepinephrine-induced (NE) and renal artery clamp (RAC) models of ischemic acute renal failure (ARF), induction renal blood flow (RBF) was measured and vascular reactivity examined one week thereafter in NE- and RAC-ARF rat kidneys that had identical levels of renal dysfunction. Morphology also was compared at 48 hours and one week. In NE-ARF, RBF was 14% during 90 minutes of induction and by 60 minutes post-NE infusion was only 18% of baseline. In contrast, in RAC-ARF RBF was effectively 0 for 75 minutes but returned to 95% of baseline by 60 minutes after clamp release. At one week there was a paradoxical increase in renovascular resistance (RVR) to renal perfusion pressure (RPP) reduction in the autoregulatory range and an augmented vasoconstriction to renal nerve stimulation (RNS) in NE-ARF, but no change in RVR and minimal reduction in RBF to these same respective stimuli in RAC-ARF (both different at P less than 0.001). NE-ARF were more sensitive to intrarenal norepinephrine than RAC-ARF kidneys (P less than 0.001). Neither NE- nor RAC-ARF kidneys responded to endothelium-dependent acetylcholine (ACh). Vasodilation to endothelium-independent prostacyclin (PGI2) in NE- was similar to sham-ARF, but there was an attenuated response in RAC-ARF kidneys (P less than 0.001). Morphology at 48 hours showed smooth muscle necrosis in half of the resistance vessels in RAC- but in less than 10% of those in NE-ARF. Except for a slightly greater frequency of tubular casts at 48 hours in RAC-ARF, tubular injury was indistinguishable. It is concluded that NE-ARF has evidence of a predominant functional endothelial vascular injury while RAC-ARF has both morphologic and functional evidence of a predominant smooth muscle injury. Differences in vascular injury between the two models, at least in part, may be the consequence of differences in severity of initial ischemia and/or the rates of recovery of RBF; however, an additional or separate toxic effect of infused NE cannot be excluded.
为确定在去甲肾上腺素诱导(NE)和肾动脉夹闭(RAC)所致缺血性急性肾衰竭(ARF)模型中观察到的血管反应性差异的机制,在诱导期测量肾血流量(RBF),并于一周后在肾功能障碍程度相同的NE-ARF和RAC-ARF大鼠肾脏中检测血管反应性。还在48小时和一周时比较了形态学。在NE-ARF中,诱导期90分钟内RBF为基线的14%,NE输注后60分钟仅为基线的18%。相比之下,在RAC-ARF中,75分钟内RBF实际上为0,但夹闭解除后60分钟恢复至基线的95%。一周时,在自动调节范围内,NE-ARF中肾血管阻力(RVR)对肾灌注压(RPP)降低出现反常增加,对肾神经刺激(RNS)的血管收缩增强,但在RAC-ARF中,对这些相同刺激的RVR无变化,RBF仅有轻微降低(两者差异均P<0.001)。NE-ARF肾脏比RAC-ARF肾脏对肾内去甲肾上腺素更敏感(P<0.001)。NE-ARF和RAC-ARF肾脏对内皮依赖性乙酰胆碱(ACh)均无反应。NE-ARF中对非内皮依赖性前列环素(PGI2)的血管舒张与假手术-ARF相似,但RAC-ARF肾脏中的反应减弱(P<0.001)。48小时时的形态学显示,RAC-ARF中半数阻力血管出现平滑肌坏死,而NE-ARF中不到10%的阻力血管出现坏死。除RAC-ARF在48小时时肾小管铸型频率略高外,肾小管损伤难以区分。结论是,NE-ARF有主要功能性内皮血管损伤的证据,而RAC-ARF有主要平滑肌损伤的形态学和功能证据。两种模型之间血管损伤的差异至少部分可能是初始缺血严重程度和/或RBF恢复速率差异的结果;然而,不能排除输注NE的额外或单独毒性作用。