4.7 Article

Renal artery nerve distribution and density in the porcine model: biologic implications for the development of radiofrequency ablation therapies

期刊

TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH
卷 162, 期 6, 页码 381-389

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.trsl.2013.07.002

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Catheter-based renal artery denervation has demonstrated to be effective in decreasing blood pressure among patients with refractory hypertension. The anatomic distribution of renal artery nerves may influence the safety and efficacy profile of this procedure. We aimed to describe the anatomic distribution and density of periarterial renal nerves in the porcine model. Thirty arterial renal sections were included in the analysis by harvesting a tissue block containing the renal arteries and perirenal tissue from each animal. Each artery was divided into 3 segments (proximal, mid, and distal) and assessed for total number, size, and depth of the nerves according to the location. Nerve counts were greatest proximally (45.62% of the total nerves) and decreased gradually distally (mid, 24.58%; distal, 29.79%). The distribution in nerve size was similar across all 3 sections (similar to 40% of the nerves, 50-100 mu m; similar to 30%, 0-50 mu m; similar to 20%, 100-200 mu m; and similar to 10%, 200-500 mu m). In the arterial segments similar to 45% of the nerves were located within 2 mm from the arterial wall whereas similar to 52% of all nerves were located within 2.5 mm from the arterial wall. Sympathetic efferent fibers outnumbered sensory afferent fibers overwhelmingly, intermixed within the nerve bundle. In the porcine model, renal artery nerves are seen more frequently in the proximal segment of the artery. Nerve size distribution appears to be homogeneous throughout the artery length. Nerve bundles progress closer to the arterial wall in the distal segments of the artery. This anatomic distribution may have implications for the future development of renal denervation therapies.

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

4.7
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