Fig. 4.
Dexmedetomidine prevents persistent cognitive deficits after general anesthesia. (A) A timeline illustrates the experimental design. (B) Memory performance on the novel object recognition task. n = 10, 12, 10, 13 (left to right); one-way ANOVA, F(3,41) = 4.1, P = 0.01. * = P < 0.05, Tukey’s multiple comparisons test. The discrimination ratio for each treatment group is significantly different from the theoretical mean of 0.5 except for the etomidate group (Ctrl: P = 0.003, Etom: P = 0.35, Etom+Dex: P = 0.005, Dex: P = 0.037; one-sample t test). (C) Total travel distance (one-way ANOVA, F(3,41) = 0.39, P = 0.76) and the total interaction time (one-way ANOVA, F(3,41) = 0.45, P = 0.72) from the same cohort as shown in B. (D) Diagrams show the timeline and various problem-solving tasks for the puzzle box assay. (E, left) After treatment with etomidate, mice exhibited a longer latency to enter the goal box for the plug task and dexmedetomidine reduced the latency. n = 22. Two-way ANOVA, effect of tasks: F(3,252) = 21.0, P < 0.0001; effect of treatment: F(2,252) = 6.3, P = 0.002; effect of interaction: F(6,252) = 0.82, P = 0.56. ** = P < 0.01 compared with etomidate + dexmedetomidine, Tukey’s multiple comparisons test. (Right) Kaplan–Meier survival plots further illustrate the effects of etomidate and dexmedetomidine on the plug task. Log-rank pairwise comparison: P = 0.016 for Etom versus Ctrl, P = 0.022 for Etom versus Etom + DEX, and P = 0.77 for Etom + DEX versus Ctrl. (F) Similarly, etomidate increased the latency for the mice to complete the task and dexmedetomidine abolished the increase. Log-rank pairwise comparison: P = 0.016 for Etom versus Ctrl, P = 0.009 for Etom versus Etom + DEX, and P = 0.96 for Etom + DEX versus Ctrl. The data are means ± SD. Ctrl = control; Dex or DEX = dexmedetomidine; Etom = etomidate.

Dexmedetomidine prevents persistent cognitive deficits after general anesthesia. (A) A timeline illustrates the experimental design. (B) Memory performance on the novel object recognition task. n = 10, 12, 10, 13 (left to right); one-way ANOVA, F(3,41) = 4.1, P = 0.01. * = P < 0.05, Tukey’s multiple comparisons test. The discrimination ratio for each treatment group is significantly different from the theoretical mean of 0.5 except for the etomidate group (Ctrl: P = 0.003, Etom: P = 0.35, Etom+Dex: P = 0.005, Dex: P = 0.037; one-sample t test). (C) Total travel distance (one-way ANOVA, F(3,41) = 0.39, P = 0.76) and the total interaction time (one-way ANOVA, F(3,41) = 0.45, P = 0.72) from the same cohort as shown in B. (D) Diagrams show the timeline and various problem-solving tasks for the puzzle box assay. (E, left) After treatment with etomidate, mice exhibited a longer latency to enter the goal box for the plug task and dexmedetomidine reduced the latency. n = 22. Two-way ANOVA, effect of tasks: F(3,252) = 21.0, P < 0.0001; effect of treatment: F(2,252) = 6.3, P = 0.002; effect of interaction: F(6,252) = 0.82, P = 0.56. ** = P < 0.01 compared with etomidate + dexmedetomidine, Tukey’s multiple comparisons test. (Right) Kaplan–Meier survival plots further illustrate the effects of etomidate and dexmedetomidine on the plug task. Log-rank pairwise comparison: P = 0.016 for Etom versus Ctrl, P = 0.022 for Etom versus Etom + DEX, and P = 0.77 for Etom + DEX versus Ctrl. (F) Similarly, etomidate increased the latency for the mice to complete the task and dexmedetomidine abolished the increase. Log-rank pairwise comparison: P = 0.016 for Etom versus Ctrl, P = 0.009 for Etom versus Etom + DEX, and P = 0.96 for Etom + DEX versus Ctrl. The data are means ± SD. Ctrl = control; Dex or DEX = dexmedetomidine; Etom = etomidate.

Close Modal
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal