4.5 Article

Intrauterine growth restriction increases blood pressure and central pulse pressure measured with telemetry in aging rats

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION
卷 24, 期 7, 页码 1337-1343

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.hjh.0000234114.33025.fd

关键词

aging; blood pressure; fetal growth retardation; hypertension; pulse pressure; rats; telemetry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives Intrauterine growth restriction ( IUGR) is associated with a higher risk of hypertension in adulthood. In Western countries, IUGR is based on uteroplacental dysfunction. We hypothesize that aging augments the increased baseline blood pressure after IUGR and alters the cardiovascular response to acute stress. Methods To evaluate blood pressure during aging in the rat, we used a model of uteroplacental dysfunction ( bilateral uterine artery ligation). Blood pressure was measured in male offspring at the ages of 6, 9, and 12 months using telemetry, allowing for unstressed measurements in conscious animals. At 6 and 12 months of age, cardiovascular data were obtained during acute olfactory stress induced by ammonia and subsequent recovery. Results Rats born after IUGR had lower birth weights (4.6 versus 6.5 g, P < 0.001) and did not completely catch up in weight by 12 months of age (519 versus 567 g, P < 0.01). Systolic blood pressure was significantly higher in IUGR animals at all ages. Pulse pressure (PP) was identical in both groups at the age of 6 months. However, PP increased in the IUGR group with increasing age, unlike the control group, and was significantly higher at 9 and 12 months of age. At the age of 12 months, there was a highly significant negative correlation between birth weight and PP (r= -0.82, P < 0.001). IUGR rats reached a higher peak in systolic blood pressure during stress, and showed a longer period for the raised heart rate to recover after stress. Conclusions IUGR is associated with raised baseline blood pressure, an increasing PP with age, and an altered stress response.

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