4.6 Article

Myocardial O2 consumption in porcine left ventricle is heterogeneously distributed in parallel to heterogeneous O2 delivery

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpheart.00338.2003

关键词

regional blood flow; metabolism; myocardium; magnetic resonance spectroscopy

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR-01243] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Myocardial blood flow is unevenly distributed, but the cause of this heterogeneity is unknown. Heterogeneous blood flow may reflect heterogeneity of oxygen demand. The aim of the present study was to assess the relation between oxygen consumption and blood flow in small tissue regions in porcine left ventricle. In seven male, anesthetized, open-chest pigs, local oxygen consumption was quantitated by computational model analysis of the incorporation of C-13 in glutamate via the tricarboxylic acid cycle during timed infusion of [C-13] acetate into the left anterior descending coronary artery. Blood flow was measured with radioactive microspheres before and during acetate infusion. High-resolution nuclear magnetic resonance C-13 spectra were obtained from extracts of tissue samples ( 159 mg mean dry wt) taken at the end of the acetate infusion. Mean regional myocardial blood flow was stable [5.0 +/- 1.6 (SD) and 5.0 +/- 1.4 ml . min(-1) . g dry wt(-1) before and after 30 min of acetate infusion, respectively]. Mean left ventricular oxygen consumption measured with the NMR method was 18.6 +/- 7.7 mumol . min(-1) . g dry wt(-1) and correlated well ( r = 0.85, P = 0.02, n = 7) with oxygen consumption calculated from blood flow, hemoglobin, and blood gas measurements (mean 22.8 +/- 4.7 mumol . min(-1) . g dry wt(-1)). Local blood flow and oxygen consumption were significantly correlated ( r = 0.63 for pooled normalized data, P < 0.0001, n = 60). We calculate that, in the heart at normal workload, the variance of left ventricular oxygen delivery at submilliliter resolution is explained for 43% by heterogeneity in oxygen demand.

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

4.6
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