4.7 Article

Morphometric evidence for impairment of renal autoregulation in advanced essential hypertension

期刊

KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL
卷 69, 期 5, 页码 823-831

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.ki.5000163

关键词

hypertension; renal autoregulation; renal blood flow; glomerular filtration rate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A morphometric study was performed on 22 renal biopsies from hypertensive patients with proteinuria and/or azotemia, with no evidence of other renal disease. These results were compared with our earlier study of normotensive aging kidneys. Afferent arterioles in hypertensive kidneys showed a significant increase in lumen diameter (15.7 +/- 4.9 vs 13.4 +/- 4.7 mu m, P = 0.0007) and wall area (1234 +/- 769 vs 998 +/- 445 mu m(2), P = 0.037), due primarily to shift in the distribution of arteriolar types, from predominantly normal toward predominantly hyaline arterioles in hypertension. Glomeruli were divided into four basic types: normal, hypertrophic, focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) type, and sclerosing. Overall, glomeruli in hypertensive kidneys were much larger than in normotensive aging kidneys, for example, total capillary area ( 16 247 +/- 10 681 vs 11 624 +/- 5702 mu m(2), P<0.00001). This increase was due primarily to an increase in size of each type, for example, for hypertrophic glomeruli: total capillary area ( 22 205 +/- 10 426 vs 15 349 +/- 4577 mu m(2), P = 0.0038). There was an excellent correlation between arteriolar lumen diameter and mean glomerular capillary area for hypertrophic/FSGS-type glomeruli ( r = 0.4778, P = 0.0013), such that as arteriolar diameter increases the mean glomerular capillary area increases, consistent with loss of autoregulation. The morphologic correlates of loss of autoregulation, with afferent arteriolar dilatation and increase in glomerular capillary size, glomerular hypertrophy, and subsequent FSGS, are present on a focal basis in aging kidneys and, much more extensively, although still focally, in hypertensive kidneys.

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