4.0 Article

Age and sex differences in sympathetic and hemodynamic responses to hypoxia and cold pressor test

期刊

PHYSIOLOGICAL REPORTS
卷 7, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.14814/phy2.13988

关键词

Blood pressure; femoral blood flow; microneurography; sex differences; sympathetic nervous system; vascular resistance

资金

  1. American Heart Association [15PRE24470033]
  2. William R. Hikes Memorial Endowment for Heart Research
  3. NIH from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) [UL1 TR002014, KL2 TR002015]
  4. Pennsylvania Department of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Emerging evidence suggests that sympathetic vasoconstriction is lower in young women. We hypothesized that increases in muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) during acute physiological stressors induce less vasoconstriction in young women compared to young men. Healthy young men (n = 10, 27 +/- 1 years), young women (n = 12, 25 +/- 1 years), and older women (n = 10, 63 +/- 6 years) performed the cold pressor test (hand in ice for 2 min) and continuous hypoxia (10% O-2, 90% N-2) for 5 min. MSNA, femoral blood flow velocity, heart rate, and blood pressure were acquired continuously. Femoral artery diameter was obtained every minute and used to calculate femoral blood flow, and femoral vascular resistance and conductance. MSNA responses to cold pressor test (P = 0.345) and hypoxia (P = 0.969) were not different between groups. Young women had greater femoral blood flow (P = 0.002) and vascular conductance (P = 0.041) responses to cold pressor test compared with young men. The femoral blood flow response to hypoxia was not different between the two sexes but the increase in femoral flow was attenuated in older women compared with younger women (P = 0.036). These data show that young women had paradoxical vasodilation to cold pressor test. The mechanisms responsible for the attenuated sympathetic vasoconstriction or for enhanced vasodilation in young women during the CPT require further investigation.

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

4.0
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