Hideki Taninishi1, Jin Yong Jung1, Miwa Izutsu1, Zhengfeng Wang2, Huaxin Sheng1, David S Warner3. 1. Multidisciplinary Neuroprotection Laboratories, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States; Department of Anesthesiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States. 2. Multidisciplinary Neuroprotection Laboratories, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States; Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States. 3. Multidisciplinary Neuroprotection Laboratories, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States; Department of Anesthesiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States; Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States; Department of Neurobiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States. Electronic address: david.warner@duke.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF) is widely used for estimating cerebral blood flow changes during intraluminal middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO). No investigation has systematically examined LDF efficacy in standardizing outcome. We examined MCAO histologic and behavioral outcome as a function of LDF measurement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rats were subjected to 90min MCAO by 4 surgeons having different levels of MCAO surgical experience. LDF was measured in all rats during ischemia. By random assignment, LDF values were (Assisted) or were not (Blinded) made available to each surgeon during MCAO (n=12-17 per group). Neurologic and histologic outcomes were measured 7 days post-MCAO. A second study examined LDF effects on 1-day post-MCAO outcome. RESULTS: Pooled across surgeons, intra-ischemic %LDF change (P=0.12), neurologic scores (Assisted vs. Blinded=14±6 vs. 13±7, P=0.61, mean±standard deviation) and cerebral infarct volume (162±63mm(3)vs. 143±86mm(3), P=0.24) were not different between groups. Only for one surgeon (novice) did LDF use alter infarct volume (145±28mm(3)vs. 98±61mm(3), P=0.03). LDF use decreased infarct volume coefficient of variation (COV) by 35% (P=0.02), but had no effect on neurologic score COV. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: We compared intraluminal MCAO outcome as a function of LDF use. CONCLUSIONS: LDF measurement altered neither neurologic nor histologic MCAO outcome. LDF did not decrease neurologic deficit COV, but did decrease infarct volume COV. LDF may allow use of fewer animals if infarct volume is the primary dependent variable, but is unlikely to impact requisite sample sizes if neurologic function is of primary interest.
BACKGROUND: Laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF) is widely used for estimating cerebral blood flow changes during intraluminal middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO). No investigation has systematically examined LDF efficacy in standardizing outcome. We examined MCAO histologic and behavioral outcome as a function of LDF measurement. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Rats were subjected to 90min MCAO by 4 surgeons having different levels of MCAO surgical experience. LDF was measured in all rats during ischemia. By random assignment, LDF values were (Assisted) or were not (Blinded) made available to each surgeon during MCAO (n=12-17 per group). Neurologic and histologic outcomes were measured 7 days post-MCAO. A second study examined LDF effects on 1-day post-MCAO outcome. RESULTS: Pooled across surgeons, intra-ischemic %LDF change (P=0.12), neurologic scores (Assisted vs. Blinded=14±6 vs. 13±7, P=0.61, mean±standard deviation) and cerebral infarct volume (162±63mm(3)vs. 143±86mm(3), P=0.24) were not different between groups. Only for one surgeon (novice) did LDF use alter infarct volume (145±28mm(3)vs. 98±61mm(3), P=0.03). LDF use decreased infarct volume coefficient of variation (COV) by 35% (P=0.02), but had no effect on neurologic score COV. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: We compared intraluminal MCAO outcome as a function of LDF use. CONCLUSIONS: LDF measurement altered neither neurologic nor histologic MCAO outcome. LDF did not decrease neurologic deficit COV, but did decrease infarct volume COV. LDF may allow use of fewer animals if infarct volume is the primary dependent variable, but is unlikely to impact requisite sample sizes if neurologic function is of primary interest.
Authors: Matt Heyck; Brooke Bonsack; Henry Zhang; Nadia Sadanandan; Blaise Cozene; Chase Kingsbury; Jea-Young Lee; Cesar V Borlongan Journal: Exp Biol Med (Maywood) Date: 2019-10-11
Authors: Hyeon J Kim; Ying Wei; Gregory R Wojtkiewicz; Ji Y Lee; Michael A Moskowitz; John W Chen Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2018-04-20 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Shuang Ma; Dongmei Chu; Litao Li; Jennifer A Creed; Yu-Mi Ryang; Huaxin Sheng; Wei Yang; David S Warner; Dennis A Turner; Ulrike Hoffmann Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Hideki Taninishi; Molly Pearlstein; Huaxin Sheng; Miwa Izutsu; Rafael E Chaparro; Larry B Goldstein; David S Warner Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2015-11-24 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Gary P Morris; Amanda L Wright; Richard P Tan; Amadeus Gladbach; Lars M Ittner; Bryce Vissel Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 3.240