Alterations in arterial function after high-voltage electrical injury

Critical Care

Young-Jin Choi³  Goo-Yeong Cho¹  Seong Hwan Kim⁴  Hyun-Sook Kim²  Min-Kyu Kim³  Woo Jung Park²  Kyoung-Ha Park³ 

[1] Department of Cardiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Gumi-Ro 173, Bundang-Gu, Seongnam-Si, 463-707 Gyeonggi-do, Korea;Department of Cardiology, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, 896, Yeongdeungpo-dong, Pyeongchon-dong, Dongan-gu Anyang, 431-070 Gyeonggi-do, Korea;Department of Cardiology, Hallym University Hangang Sacred Heart Hospital, 94-200, Yeongdeungpo-dong, 150-030 Seoul, Korea;Department of Cardiology, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Cojan 1-Dong, Danwon-Gu, Ansan-Si, 152-703 Gyeonggi-do, Korea

关键词: nitrate-mediated dilation;    flow-mediated dilation;    arterial function;    smooth muscle;    endothelium;    high-voltage electrical injury;   

Others  :  1093120
DOI  :  10.1186/cc11190

 received in 2011-11-06, accepted in 2012-02-12,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Introduction

The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional changes of the arterial endothelium and smooth muscle after a high-voltage electrical injury (HVEI), using flow-mediated dilation (FMD) and nitrate-mediated dilation (NMD).

Methods

Twenty-five male patients injured in the upper extremities by current due to contact with more than 20,000 volts were enrolled in the study. FMD and NMD were measured on the brachial artery within 48 hours after HVEI, and follow-up FMD and NMD were evaluated six weeks later. In addition, we enrolled an age, sex and body mass index matched healthy control group consisting of 25 individuals. Including FMD and NMD, all the variables of the control group were investigated one time and compared with the initial and six week follow-up data of the HVEI group.

Results

A significantly lower initial FMD was seen in the HVEI group compared with the control group (2.1 ± 1.2% versus 13.6 ± 3.4%, P < 0.01). At the six week follow-up, the FMD of the HVEI group had significantly improved compared to the initial FMD (2.1 ± 1.2% versus 5.1 ± 2.1%, P < 0.01), but it was still lower than the FMD of the control group (5.1 ± 2.1% versus 13.6 ± 3.4%, P < 0.01). A significantly lower NMD was seen both initially and at the six week follow-up compared with the NMD of the control group (7.3 ± 4.7% versus 20.4 ± 4.1%, P < 0.01 and 11.4 ± 6.7% versus 20.4 ± 4.1%, P < 0.01, respectively). The FMD study of the contralateral arm which was uninjured by HVEI was available in six patients. In those patients, the six week follow-up FMD was significantly improved in the HVEI arm compared with the initial FMD (1.8 ± 0.6% versus 4.4 ± 1.6%, P < 0.01). However, in the contralateral uninjured arm, there was no difference between the initial and the six week follow-up FMDs (5.5 ± 1.4% versus 6.9 ± 2.2%, P = 0.26).

Conclusions

After HVEI, the endothelial and smooth muscle functions of the brachial artery were significantly decreased for at least six weeks. Long term cautious care might be needed for all victims of HVEI, because there is a chance of increased risk of thrombosis or stenosis in the injured arm.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Park et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Herrera FA, Hassanein AH, Potenza B, Dobke M, Angle N: Bilateral upper extremity vascular injury as a result of a high-voltage electrical burn. Ann Vasc Surg 2010, 24:825 e1-5.
• [2]Andrews C: Structural changes after lightning strike, with special emphasis on special sense orifices as portals of entry. Semin Neurol 1995, 15:296-303.
• [3]Hunt JL, Mason AD Jr, Masterson TS, Pruitt BA Jr: The pathophysiology of acute electric injuries. J Trauma 1976, 16:335-340.
• [4]Bingham H: Electrical burns. Clin Plast Surg 1986, 13:75-85.
• [5]Handschin AE, Vetter S, Jung FJ, Guggenheim M, Kunzi W, Giovanoli P: A case-matched controlled study on high-voltage electrical injuries vs thermal burns. J Burn Care Res 2009, 30:400-407.
• [6]Salisbury RE, Hunt JL, Warden GD, Pruitt BA Jr: Management of electrical burns of the upper extremity. Plast Reconstr Surg 1973, 51:648-652.
• [7]Koshima I, Moriguchi T, Soeda S, Murashita T: High-voltage electrical injury: electron microscopic findings of injured vessel, nerve, and muscle. Ann Plast Surg 1991, 26:587-591.
• [8]Wang XW, Zoh WH: Vascular injuries in electrical burns--the pathologic basis for mechanism of injury. Burns Incl Therm Inj 1983, 9:335-338.
• [9]Carmeliet P, Moons L, Stassen JM, De Mol M, Bouche A, van den Oord JJ, Kockx M, Collen D: Vascular wound healing and neointima formation induced by perivascular electric injury in mice. Am J Pathol 1997, 150:761-776.
• [10]Corretti MC, Anderson TJ, Benjamin EJ, Celermajer D, Charbonneau F, Creager MA, Deanfield J, Drexler H, Gerhard-Herman M, Herrington D, Vallance P, Vita J, Vogel R: Guidelines for the ultrasound assessment of endothelial-dependent flow-mediated vasodilation of the brachial artery: a report of the International Brachial Artery Reactivity Task Force. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002, 39:257-265.
• [11]Schiller NB, Shah PM, Crawford M, DeMaria A, Devereux R, Feigenbaum H, Gutgesell H, Reichek N, Sahn D, Schnittger I, Silverman NH, Tajik AJ: Recommendations for quantitation of the left ventricle by two-dimensional echocardiography. American Society of Echocardiography Committee on Standards, Subcommittee on Quantitation of Two-Dimensional Echocardiograms. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 1989, 2:358-367.
• [12]Lang RM, Bierig M, Devereux RB, Flachskampf FA, Foster E, Pellikka PA, Picard MH, Roman MJ, Seward J, Shanewise JS, Solomon SD, Spencer KT, Sutton MS, Stewart WJ: Recommendations for chamber quantification: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography's Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Chamber Quantification Writing Group, developed in conjunction with the European Association of Echocardiography, a branch of the European Society of Cardiology. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2005, 18:1440-1463.
• [13]Koumbourlis AC: Electrical injuries. Crit Care Med 2002, 30(Suppl 11):424-430.
• [14]Baxter CR: Present concepts in the management of major electrical injury. Surg Clin North Am 1970, 50:1401-1418.
• [15]Buchanan DL, Erk Y, Spira M: Electric current arterial injury: a laboratory model. Plast Reconstr Surg 1983, 72:199-207.
• [16]Reidy MA, Schwartz SM: Endothelial regeneration. III. Time course of intimal changes after small defined injury to rat aortic endothelium. Lab Invest 1981, 44:301-308.
• [17]Reidy MA, Clowes AW, Schwartz SM: Endothelial regeneration. V. Inhibition of endothelial regrowth in arteries of rat and rabbit. Lab Invest 1983, 49:569-575.
• [18]Anderson TJ: Assessment and treatment of endothelial dysfunction in humans. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999, 34:631-638.
• [19]Di Napoli P, Chierchia S, Taccardi AA, Grilli A, Felaco M, De Caterina R, Barsotti A: Trimetazidine improves post-ischemic recovery by preserving endothelial nitric oxide synthase expression in isolated working rat hearts. Nitric Oxide 2007, 16:228-236.
• [20]Ghiadoni L, Taddei S, Virdis A: Hypertension and endothelial dysfunction: therapeutic approach. Curr Vasc Pharmacol 2012, 10:42-60.
• [21]Ulrich D, Pallua N, Lichtenegger F, Hafemann B, Silny J: Influence of low frequency electric fields on anti- and pro-coagulability of the vascular endothelium: new insights into high-voltage electrical injury. Thromb Haemost 2004, 91:1000-1008.
• [22]Tayfur V, Barutcu A, Bardakci Y, Ozogul C, Tayfur D, Yorukoglu K: Vascular pathological changes in rat lower extremity and timing of microsurgery after electrical trauma. J Burn Care Res 2011, 32:74-81.
• [23]Hijmering ML, Stroes ES, Olijhoek J, Hutten BA, Blankestijn PJ, Rabelink TJ: Sympathetic activation markedly reduces endothelium-dependent, flow-mediated vasodilation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002, 39:683-688.
• [24]Paulus P, Jennewein C, Zacharowski K: Biomarkers of endothelial dysfunction: can they help us deciphering systemic inflammation and sepsis? Biomarkers 2011, 16:11-21.