4.1 Review

Neuropharmacologic distinction of neurogenic orthostatic hypotension syndromes

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHARMACOLOGY
卷 29, 期 3, 页码 97-105

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.WNF.0000220822.80640.0D

关键词

multiple system atrophy; Parkinson disease; pure autonomic failure; catecholamines; positron emission tomography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (OH) characterizes pure autonomic failure (PAF), multiple system atrophy (MSA), and Parkinson disease (PD) with autonomic failure. We used neuropharmacologic probes that might distinguish these diseases based on loss of sympathetic noradrenergic nerves in PAF and PD + OH but not in MSA and related the results to neurochemical and neuro-imaging findings in the same patients. Methods: Patients with neurogenic OH (PD + OH; N = 35), MSA (N = 41), and PAF (N = 12) received iv trimethaphan (TRI), which inhibits sympathetic nerve traffic, or yohimbine (YOH). which stimulates sympathetic traffic. Dependent measures included blood pressure, plasma norepinephrine (NE) levels, and interventricular septal myocardial radioactivity after iv injection of the sympathoneural imaging agent. 6-[F-18]fluorodopamine. Results: The PD + 011 and PAF groups had smaller pressor responses to YOH (12 divided by 8 and 13 +/- 1 mm Hg) and depressor responses to TRI (- 14 +/- 8 and - 17 +/- 7 nim Hg) than did the MSA group (43 +/- 8 min Hg, - 57 divided by 8 nun Hg; P = 0.01, P = 0.03). The PD + OH and MSA groups did not differ in NE responses to YOH and TRI. The depressor response to TRI, the pressor response to YOH, and the blood pressure difference between YOH and TRI all correlated positively with myocardial 6-[F-18]fluorodopamine-derived radioactivity. Conclusions: The PD + OH resembles PAF and differs from MSA in hemodynamic responses to drugs that alter NE release from sympathetic nerves. The results fit with sympathetic noradrenergic denervation in PD + OH and PAF but not in MSA.

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

4.1
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