Hammerman C, Kaplan M
Department of Neonatology, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Clin Perinatol. 1998 Sep;25(3):757-77.
It seems clear that the abundance of potential treatment options reflects the dearth of proved, effective options. Thus, although we appear to be on the brink of many potentially major breakthroughs in treatment, there currently remains a multitude of unanswered questions and the need for further study. At this point clinical recommendations must be limited to supportive care with moderation: oxygenation without hyperoxia; ventilation without hypocarbia; avoiding extremes of blood pressure, hematocrit, blood glucose, and body temperature. Unfortunately, data from human trials are extremely limited and often poorly controlled. Furthermore, even those few existing human studies have rarely--if ever--dealt with newborns infants (Table 2). In addition, many of the existing studies do not relate to generalized asphyxia but rather to single-organ reperfusion insults. Finally, there is the critical issue of timing. Unfortunately, much of the existing experimental data relate to prophylaxis rather than treatment, severely limiting their potential for clinical applicability. Interventions may have quite different effects when administered at different phases of this most intricate process. Hyperglycemia, for example, may be neuroprotective before an insult but detrimental if induced after an asphyxial episode. Conversely, the NMDA blocker MK-801 can adversely affect outcome when given before a global asphyxial insult but can reduce seizure-related damage when given during the hyperexcitability phase. Insulin-like growth factor is also neuroprotective only when given after an insult, but it is not helpful if given before. An intimate understanding of the pathophysiologic processes involved is essential before any attempts at applying the diverse data derived from numerous animal studies to the human situation in an intelligent manner. Future studies may focus on cocktails of different mixtures of the compounds discussed or on single multipotential drugs, which would make possible a multipronged approach. However, it is essential to investigate fully the potential for toxic drug interactions, as some combinations may be produce serious consequences. For example, Gluckman and Williams evaluated the potential of combining calcium channel blockers with NMDA receptor antagonists in hypoxic-ischemic rats and found that this combination led to rapid cardiovascular collapse. Other enticing approaches for future investigations will probably include some genetic-engineering-related studies in attempt to enhance endogenous antioxidant defenses with regulon stimulation or the administration of neurotrophic growth factors. Unavoidably, the trip from the laboratory to the bedside must of necessity be an arduous and rigorous one.
显然,大量潜在的治疗选择反映出已证实的有效选择匮乏。因此,尽管我们似乎正处于治疗方面许多潜在重大突破的边缘,但目前仍有许多未解决的问题,需要进一步研究。此时,临床建议必须限于适度的支持性护理:避免高氧的氧合;避免低碳酸血症的通气;避免血压、血细胞比容、血糖和体温的极端情况。不幸的是,人体试验的数据极其有限,而且往往控制不佳。此外,即使是现有的少数人体研究也很少(如果有的话)涉及新生儿(表2)。此外,许多现有研究并非针对全身性窒息,而是针对单一器官的再灌注损伤。最后,还有关键的时机问题。不幸的是,现有的许多实验数据涉及预防而非治疗,严重限制了它们的临床适用性潜力。在这个极其复杂的过程的不同阶段进行干预可能会产生截然不同的效果。例如,高血糖在损伤前可能具有神经保护作用,但如果在窒息发作后诱发则有害。相反,NMDA拮抗剂MK-801在全身性窒息损伤前给予会对结果产生不利影响,但在兴奋性过高阶段给予则可减少癫痫相关损伤。胰岛素样生长因子也只有在损伤后给予才具有神经保护作用,但在损伤前给予则无帮助。在以明智的方式将大量动物研究得出的各种数据应用于人类情况之前,深入了解所涉及的病理生理过程至关重要。未来的研究可能集中在讨论的化合物的不同混合物组合或单一多潜能药物上,这将使多管齐下的方法成为可能。然而,全面研究药物潜在的毒性相互作用至关重要,因为某些组合可能会产生严重后果。例如,格鲁克曼和威廉姆斯评估了在缺氧缺血大鼠中将钙通道阻滞剂与NMDA受体拮抗剂联合使用的潜力,发现这种组合会导致快速的心血管衰竭。未来研究的其他诱人方法可能包括一些与基因工程相关的研究,试图通过调节子刺激或给予神经营养生长因子来增强内源性抗氧化防御。不可避免的是,从实验室到临床的旅程必然是艰巨而严格的。