4.7 Article

Augmented input from cardiac sympathetic afferents inhibits baroreflex in rats with heart failure

期刊

HYPERTENSION
卷 45, 期 6, 页码 1173-1181

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.HYP.0000168056.66981.c2

关键词

baroreflex; cardiac function; heart failure; reflex; renal nerves; sympathetic nervous system

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [P01 HL62222, R01 HL 077691] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It has been established that the baroreflex is markedly decreased in chronic heart failure (CHF). Our recent study has indicated that activation of the cardiac sympathetic afferent reflex (CSAR) inhibits the baroreflex in normal rats, and in the rats with CHF the CSAR is significantly enhanced, which is related to augmented central angiotensin II (Ang II) mechanism. Therefore, the hypothesis is that the augmented CSAR in the CHF state tonically inhibits the baroreflex via central AT(1) receptor. To test the hypothesis, the rats with myocardial infarction-induced CHF or sham surgery were anesthetized with alpha-chloralose and urethane, vagotomized, and recordings were made of the mean arterial pressure (MAP) and renal sympathetic nerve activity (RSNA). We found: (1) left ventricular epicardial application of capsaicin or electrical stimulation of the central end of the left cardiac sympathetic nerve blunted the baroreflex in both sham and CHF rats; (2) left ventricular epicardial application of lidocaine had no significant effects on the baroreflex in sham rats but improved the baroreflex in CHF rats (maximum slope, 1.7+/-0.3 to 2.9+/-0.2%/mm Hg; P<0.01); and (3) intracerebral ventricular injection of losartan had no significant effect on baroreflex in sham rats but improved the baroreflex in CHF rats (maximum slope 1.9+/-0.2 to 3.1+/-0.2%/mm Hg; P<0.01). These results suggest that tonic cardiac sympathetic afferent input plays an important role in the blunted baroreflex associated with CHF, which is mediated by central AT(1) receptors.

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