EKSPERIMENTAL MODELLASHTIRISH JARAYONIDA ORQA MIYA SHIKASTLANISHINI TASHXISLASHDA GLIOFIBRILYAR KISLOTALI OQSILDAN FOYDALANISHNING PROGNOSTIK AHAMIYATI
##article.subject##:
gliofibrilyar kislotali oqsil; orqa miya shikastlanishi; tajriba; patofiziologiya; o'ziga xoslik; sezgirlik##article.abstract##
Tadqiqot maqsadi. Eksperimental modellashtirish jarayonida gliofibrilyar kislotali oqsil va orqa miya shikastlanishi o'rtasidagi munosabatni aniqlash. Tadqiqot materiallari va usullari. Tajribalar o'murtqa shikastlanish modelidan foydalangan holda 180 ta erkak kalamushlarda o'tkazildi. Eksperimental umurtqa pog'onasi shikastlanishi o'rtacha kontuziyali orqa miya shikastlanishining standart modelining modifikatsiyasiga muvofiq qayta ishlab chiqariladi. Eksperimental hayvonlar sifatida 200-230 g og'irlikdagi jinsiy etuk erkak kalamushlardan foydalaniladi. Tadqiqot davomida hayvonlar uch guruhga bo'lingan: birinchi nazorat guruhi - 6 ta hayvon, ular butun tajriba davomida t = 22 da bo'lgan. ° C. 20 sm balandlikdan 250 g og'irlikdagi yuk bilan shikastlangan 20 ta hayvondan iborat ikkinchi guruhga, uchinchi guruhga 20 ta hayvon, og'irlikdagi yuk bilan shikastlangan bel umurtqasi kiradi 40 sm balandlikdan 250 g Тadqiqot natijalari. Zardobdagi GFAP darajalari sezilarli darajada yuqori (p = 0,02 dan <0,0001) AIS A bilan og'rigan bemorlarda 6 oyda yaxshilanmadi, bu sezuvchanlik va o'ziga xoslik (95% CI) 76% (61, 87) va 77% bilan AIS darajasiga o'tishni bashorat qildi. (55, 92) GFAP 72% (57, 84) va 77% (55, 92) mos ravishda 72 soatdan keyin. Klinik dastlabki baholashdan qat'i nazar, 72 soatda 170 pg/ml sarum GFAP chegarasi 14 kunlik sezuvchanlikda to'liq motorli (AIS A/B) va to'liq bo'lmagan motor (AIS C/D) sifatida tasniflanadigan kalamushlarni bashorat qildi. (76, 94) va o'ziga xoslik 84% (69, 94); 72 soatda 13,180 pg/ml sarum GFAP chegara qiymati 90% (80, 96) sezuvchanlik va 84% (69, 94) o'ziga xoslikni berdi.
Библиографические ссылки
• 1.Lee RS, Noonan VK, Batke J, et al. . Feasibility of patient recruitment into clinical trials of experimental treatments for acute spinal cord injury. J Clin Neurosci. 2012;19(10):1338-1343. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 2.Kirshblum S, Snider B, Eren F, Guest J. Characterizing natural recovery after traumatic spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma. 2021;38(9):1267-1284. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 3.Fawcett JW, Curt A, Steeves JD, et al. . Guidelines for the conduct of clinical trials for spinal cord injury as developed by the ICCP panel: spontaneous recovery after spinal cord injury and statistical power needed for therapeutic clinical trials. Spinal Cord. 2007;45(3):190-205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 4.Kwon BK, Bloom O, Wanner IB, et al. . Neurochemical biomarkers in spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2019;57(10):819-831. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 5.Hulme CH, Brown SJ, Fuller HR, et al. . The developing landscape of diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for spinal cord injury in cerebrospinal fluid and blood. Spinal Cord. 2017;55(2):114-125. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 6.Gan ZS, Stein SC, Swanson R, et al. . Blood biomarkers for traumatic brain injury: a quantitative assessment of diagnostic and prognostic accuracy. Front Neurol. 2019;10:446. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 7.Czeiter E, Amrein K, Gravesteijn BY, et al. . Blood biomarkers on admission in acute traumatic brain injury: relations to severity, CT findings and care path in the CENTER-TBI study. EBioMedicine. 2020;56:102785. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 8.Bazarian JJ, Biberthaler P, Welch RD, et al. . Serum GFAP and UCH-L1 for prediction of absence of intracranial injuries on head CT (ALERT-TBI): a multicentre observational study. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(9):782-789. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 9.Okonkwo DO, Puffer RC, Puccio AM, et al. . Point-of-Care platform blood biomarker testing of glial fibrillary acidic protein versus S100 calcium-binding protein B for prediction of traumatic brain injuries: a transforming research and clinical knowledge in traumatic brain injury study. J Neurotrauma. 2020;37(23):2460-2467. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 10.Shahim P, Politis A, van der Merwe A, et al. . Time course and diagnostic utility of NfL, tau, GFAP, and UCH-L1 in subacute and chronic TBI. Neurology. 2020;95(6):e623-e636. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 11.Wang KKW, Kobeissy FH, Shakkour Z, Tyndall JA. Thorough overview of ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase-L1 and glial fibrillary acidic protein as tandem biomarkers recently cleared by US Food and Drug Administration for the evaluation of intracranial injuries among patients with traumatic brain injury. Acute Med Surg. 2021;8(1):e622. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 12.Shahim P, Gren M, Liman V, et al. . Serum neurofilament light protein predicts clinical outcome in traumatic brain injury. Sci Rep. 2016;6(1):36791. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 13.Ljungqvist J, Zetterberg H, Mitsis M, Blennow K, Skoglund T. Serum neurofilament light protein as a marker for diffuse axonal injury: results from a case series study. J Neurotrauma. 2017;34(5):1124-1127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 14.Kwon BK, Streijger F, Fallah N, et al. . Cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers to stratify injury severity and predict outcome in human traumatic spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma. 2017;34(3):567-580. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 15.Kwon BK, Stammers AM, Belanger LM, et al. . Cerebrospinal fluid inflammatory cytokines and biomarkers of injury severity in acute human spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma. 2010;27(4):669-682.
