4.5 Article

Carotid artery pulse wave time characteristics to quantify ventriculoarterial responses to orthostatic challenge

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 102, 期 6, 页码 2128-2134

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.01206.2006

关键词

hemodynamics; orthostasis; systolic time intervals; vascular ultrasound

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Central blood pressure waveforms contain specific features related to cardiac and arterial function. We investigated posture-related changes in ventriculoarterial hemodynamics by means of carotid artery (CA) pulse wave analysis. ECG, brachial cuff pressure, and common CA diameter waveforms (by M-mode ultrasound) were obtained in 21 healthy volunteers (19-30 yr of age, 10 men and 11 women) in supine and sitting positions. Pulse wave analysis was based on a timing extraction algorithm that automatically detects acceleration maxima in the second derivative of the CA pulse waveform. The algorithm enabled determination of isovolumic contraction period (1CP) and ejection period (EP): ICP = 43 +/- 8 (SD) ms (4-ms precision), and EP = 302 +/- 16 (SD) ms (5-ms precision). Compared with the supine position, in the sitting position diastolic blood pressure (DBP) increased by 7 +/- 4 mmHg (P < 0.001) and R-R interval decreased by 49 +/- 82 ms (P = 0.013), reflecting normal baroreflex response, whereas EP decreased to 267 +/- 19 ins (P < 0.001). Shortening of EP was significantly correlated to earlier arrival of the lower body peripheral reflection wave (r(2) = 0.46, P < 0.001). 1CP increased by 7 +/- 7 ms (P < 0.001), the ICP-to-EP ratio increased from 14 +/- 3% (supine) to 19 3% (P < 0.001) and the DBP-to-ICP ratio decreased by 7% (P = 0.023). These results suggest that orthostasis decreases left ventricular output as a result of arterial wave reflections and, presumably, reduced cardiac preload. We conclude that CA ultrasound and pulse wave analysis enable noninvasive quantification of ventriculoarterial responses to changes in posture.

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