4.5 Article

Control of cerebral blood velocity with furosemide-induced hypovolemia and upright tilt

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 110, 期 2, 页码 492-498

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.01060.2010

关键词

orthostatic intolerance; hypovolemia; cerebral hemodynamics

资金

  1. Texas Chapter of the American College of Sports Medicine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that exacerbated reductions of cerebral blood velocity (CBV) during upright tilt with dehydration are associated with impaired cerebrovascular control. Nine healthy men were tilted head-up (HUT) to 70 degrees for 10 min on two occasions separated by 7 days under euhydration (EUH) and dehydration (DEH; 40 mg of furosemide and water restriction) conditions. Beat-by-beat arterial pressures and CBV were measured during a 5-min supine baseline and during the first (T1) and last (T2) 5 min of HUT. Cerebral autoregulation and arterial baroreflex sensitivity were assessed in the frequency domain with cross-spectral techniques. DEH reduced plasma volume by 10% (P = 0.008) and supine mean CBV (CBVmean) by 11% (P = 0.002). Mean arterial pressure (MAP), stroke volume, and baroreflex sensitivity decreased during HUT (P <= 0.002), but absolute reductions were similar between hydration conditions, with the exception of stroke volume, which was lower at T1 during DEH than EUH (P = 0.04). CBVmean during DEH was lower (7 cm/s) over the course of the entire 10 min of HUT (P <= 0.004) than during EUH. Low-frequency oscillations (0.07-0.2 Hz) of MAP and CBVmean and MAP-CBVmean coherence were higher during DEH than EUH at T1 (P <= 0.02), but not at T2. Our results suggest that increased coherence between arterial pressure and CBV with the combination of DEH and HUT are indicative of altered cerebrovascular control. Increased CBV oscillations with DEH may reflect acute protective mechanisms to ensure adequate cerebral perfusion under conditions of reduced central blood volume.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据