Lingle C J, Steinbach J H
Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.
Int Anesthesiol Clin. 1988 Winter;26(4):288-301. doi: 10.1097/00004311-198802640-00007.
Clearly, many aspects of the action of neuromuscular blockers remain poorly understood at the molecular level. In the case of competitive blockers, blockade of EPPs by competitive binding to the ACh receptor site accounts for the most clinically important aspect of blockade. Although train-of-four fade produced by curare and some other competitive agents probably represents a presynaptic action, the molecular mechanisms underlying this effect have not been addressed. Depolarizing blockade is inherently more complicated than competitive blockade. Simple depolarization and inactivation of the mechanism for generation of the action potential probably account for the major clinical effect seen in phase I block. Furthermore, the relative balance between activation of channels and desensitization may also provide a qualitative explanation for phase II block and tachyphylaxis. However, effects that are more likely to be explained by presynaptic actions of depolarizing blockers have also been described, and it is not yet possible to assess quantitatively whether the rates of onset of the different postsynaptic actions can account for most aspects of depolarizing block. This discussion has raised several issues which need to be addressed in future studies. 1. What are the presynaptic effects of cholinergic drugs? Do these drugs act through a specific receptor or, on other ion channels in the terminal membrane, or do they operate by mechanisms distinct from effects on membrane conductance? Can any of the observations be explained by indirect effects mediated through postsynaptic ACh receptors, e.g., K+ release? 2. What are the factors that influence variability in sensitivity to neuromuscular blockers among species, muscles within species, and during development? Many of the potential factors, e.g., differences in safety factor, resting conductances, ACh receptor type, and differences in the presence and absence of presynaptic receptors, have been outlined, but definitive tests of the contribution of any particular mechanisms are lacking. 3. Does modulation of desensitization play a role in any components of neuromuscular blockade? 4. Can trapping of blocking agents in ion channels in some cases account for slowly reversible components of blockade? 5. Can closed-channel block provide an effective mechanism of neuromuscular block?
显然,在分子水平上,神经肌肉阻滞剂作用的许多方面仍未得到充分理解。就竞争性阻滞剂而言,通过与乙酰胆碱(ACh)受体位点竞争性结合来阻断终板电位(EPPs)是该类阻滞剂临床上最重要的作用方面。虽然箭毒和其他一些竞争性药物所产生的四个成串刺激衰减现象可能代表一种突触前作用,但这种效应背后的分子机制尚未得到研究。去极化阻滞本质上比竞争性阻滞更为复杂。动作电位产生机制的简单去极化和失活可能是I期阻滞所见主要临床效应的原因。此外,通道激活与脱敏之间的相对平衡也可能为II期阻滞和快速耐受性提供定性解释。然而,也有一些效应更可能由去极化阻滞剂的突触前作用来解释,并且目前还无法定量评估不同突触后作用的起效速率是否能解释去极化阻滞的大多数方面。上述讨论提出了几个需要在未来研究中解决的问题。1. 胆碱能药物的突触前效应是什么?这些药物是通过特定受体起作用,还是作用于终板膜上的其他离子通道,或者它们的作用机制与对膜电导的影响不同?能否用通过突触后ACh受体介导的间接效应(例如钾离子释放)来解释其中的任何观察结果?2. 影响不同物种、同一物种内不同肌肉以及发育过程中对神经肌肉阻滞剂敏感性差异的因素有哪些?许多潜在因素,例如安全系数、静息电导、ACh受体类型以及突触前受体存在与否的差异等已被提及,但对于任何特定机制所起作用的确定性测试仍很缺乏。3. 脱敏调节在神经肌肉阻滞的任何组成部分中是否起作用?4. 在某些情况下,阻滞剂在离子通道中的滞留能否解释阻滞的缓慢可逆成分?5. 通道关闭阻滞能否提供一种有效的神经肌肉阻滞机制?