4.3 Article

Impact of age and sex on neural cardiovascular responsiveness to cold pressor test in humans

Publisher

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.00045.2020

Keywords

aging; blood pressure; MSNA; sex differences

Categories

Funding

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [HL-122919, HL-088689, HL-098676]
  2. American Physiological Society Research Enhancement Award

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Prior longitudinal work suggests that blood pressure (BP) reactivity to the cold pressor test (CPT) helps predict hypertension; yet the impact of age and sex on hemodynamic and neural responsiveness to CPT remains equivocal. Forty-three young (21 +/- 1yr, means +/- SE) men (YM, n = 20) and women (YW, n = 23) and 16 older (60 +/- 1yr) men (OM, n = 9) and women (OW, n = 7) participated in an experimental visit where continuous BP (finger plethysmography) and muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA; microneurography) were recorded during a 3- to 5-min baseline and 2-min CPT. Baseline mean arterial pressure (MAP) was greater in OM than in YM (92 +/- 4 vs. 77 +/- 1 mmHg, P < 0.01), but similar in women (P = 0.12). Baseline MSNA incidence was greater in OM [69 +/- 6 bursts/100 heartbeats (hb)] than in OW (44 +/- 7 bursts/100 hb, P = 0.02) and lower in young adults (YM: 17 +/- 3 vs. YW: 16 +/- 2 bursts/100 hb. P < 0.01), but similar across the sexes (P = 0.83). However, when exposed to the CPT. MSNA increased more rapidly in OW (Delta 43 +/- 6 bursts/100 hb; group x time, P = 0.01) compared with OM (Delta 15 +/- 3 bursts/100 hb) but was not different between YW (Delta 30 +/- 3 bursts/100 hb) and YM (Delta 33 +/- 4 bursts/100 hb, P = 1.0). There were no differences in MAP with CPT between groups (group x time, P = 0.33). These findings suggest that OW demonstrate a more rapid initial rise in MSNA responsiveness to a CPT compared with OM. This greater sympathetic reactivity in OW may be a contributing mechanism to the increased hypertension risk in postmenopausal women.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available