4.5 Article

Essential hypertension - Is erroneous receptor output to blame?

Journal

MEDICAL HYPOTHESES
Volume 78, Issue 4, Pages 454-458

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.mehy.2011.12.019

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Medical University of Warsaw [1MA/PM12/11]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hypertension is a chronic medical condition in which systemic arterial blood pressure is elevated. About 80-90% of diagnosed hypertension is considered essential (idiopathic), which means there is no obvious cause of the increase in blood pressure. My hypothesis states that part of idiopathic hypertension results from erroneous information that the brain receives from receptors involved in the regulation of arterial blood pressure, i.e. if, despite high systemic blood pressure, the brain receives false low-arterial pressure input from cardiovascular receptors. As a result the brain centres which control blood pressure reset and produce an inappropriate output to the effectors (heart, blood vessels, kidneys and glands). The information errors may result from: (i) structural and/or functional impairment of cardiovascular receptors, (ii) changes in cardiovascular receptors activity, which are caused by other factors than changes in blood pressure, and (iii) impaired transmission in afferent fibres. I assume that in contrast to the lack of input from damaged or denervated cardiovascular receptors, an erroneous input will impair the control of arterial blood pressure. This will apply especially to false input which imitates low-arterial pressure input. Higher priority of low-arterial pressure input over high-arterial pressure input or none input may be explained by the evolutionary adaptation, i.e. low blood pressure, mostly due to haemorrhage, used to be a more common condition than high blood pressure and constitute a major threat to humans. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available