4.6 Article

Vascular adrenergic responsiveness is inversely related to tonic activity of sympathetic vasoconstrictor nerves in humans

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-LONDON
Volume 572, Issue 3, Pages 821-827

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2005.104075

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01 RR000585, RR00585] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [NS 32352, N01NS32352] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In humans, sympathetic nerve activity (SNA) at rest can vary several-fold among normotensive individuals with similar blood pressures. We recently showed that a balance exists between SNA and cardiac output, which may contribute to the maintenance of normal blood pressures over the range of resting SNA levels. In the present studies, we assessed whether variability in vascular adrenergic responsiveness has a role in this balance. We tested the hypothesis that forearm vascular responses to noradrenaline (NA) and tyramine (TYR) are related to SNA such that individuals with lower resting SNA have greater adrenergic responsiveness, and vice-versa. We measured multifibre muscle SNA (MSNA; microneurography), arterial pressure (brachial catheter) and forearm blood flow (plethysmography) in 19 healthy subjects at baseline and during intrabrachial infusions of NA and TYR. Resting MSNA ranged from 6 to 34 bursts min(-1), and was inversely related to vasoconstrictor responsiveness to both NA (r = 0.61, P = 0.01) and TYR (r = 0.52, P = 0.02), such that subjects with lower resting MSNA were more responsive to NA and TYR. We conclude that interindividual variability in vascular adrenergic responsiveness contributes to the balance of factors that maintain normal blood pressure in individuals with differing levels of sympathetic neural activity. Further understanding of this balance may have important implications for our understanding of the pathophysiology of hypertension.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available