4.6 Article

Ascorbic acid increases cardiovagal baroreflex sensitivity in healthy older men

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpheart.01054.2003

关键词

baroreceptors; blood pressure; antioxidants

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR 00051] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL 67624] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIA NIH HHS [AG 13038, AG 19365, AG 06537] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cardiovagal baroreflex sensitivity (BRS) declines with advancing age in healthy men. We tested the hypothesis that oxidative stress contributes mechanistically to this age-associated reduction. Eight young (23 +/- 1 yrs, means +/- SE) and seven older (63 +/- 3) healthy men were studied. Cardiovagal BRS was assessed using the modified Oxford technique (bolus infusion of 50-100 mug sodium nitroprusside, followed 60 s later by a 100- to 150-mug bolus of phenylephrine hydrochloride) in triplicate at baseline and during acute intravenous ascorbic acid infusion. At baseline, cardiovagal BRS ( slope of the linear portion of the R-R interval-systolic blood pressure relation during pharmacological changes in arterial blood pressure) was 56% lower (P < 0.01) in older (8.3 +/- 1.6 ms/mmHg) compared with young (19.0 +/- 3.1 ms/mmHg) men. Ascorbic acid infusion increased plasma concentrations similarly in young (62 +/- 9 vs. 1,249 +/- 72 mu mol/l for baseline and during ascorbic acid; P < 0.05) and older men (62 +/- 4 vs. 1,022 +/- 55 mumol/l; P < 0.05) without affecting baseline blood pressure, heart rate, carotid artery compliance, or the magnitude of change in systolic blood pressure in response to bolus sodium nitroprusside and phenylephrine hydrochloride infusion. Ascorbic acid ( vitamin C) infusion increased cardiovagal BRS in older (Delta 58 +/- 16%; P < 0.01), but not younger (Delta - 4 +/- 4%) men. These data provide experimental support for the concept that oxidative stress contributes mechanistically to age-associated reductions in cardiovagal BRS in healthy men.

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