4.8 Article

Impairment of thermoregulatory control of skin sympathetic nerve traffic in the elderly

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 108, 期 6, 页码 729-735

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000081769.02847.A1

关键词

aging; nervous system; nervous system, sympathetic; reflex

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-Human aging is characterized by a marked increase in muscle sympathetic nerve traffic (MSNA). No information exists, however, on the effects of aging on skin sympathetic nerve traffic ( SSNA) and on its reflex modulation by thermoregulatory mechanisms. Methods and Results-In 13 young, 11 middle-aged, and 12 elderly healthy subjects, we measured arterial blood pressure (Finapres), skin temperature ( thermocouples), and resting MSNA and SSNA (microneurography). Measurements also included the SSNA responses to ( 1) an acute increase and reduction (+/-8degreesC) in room temperature, each lasting 45 minutes and ( 2) an acoustic stimulus capable to trigger an emotional arousal. Although resting MSNA was progressively and significantly (P < 0.05) increased from young to middle-aged and elderly groups, SSNA was significantly (P < 0.05) reduced in the latter compared with the former 2 groups. Cold exposure induced a SSNA increase that was significantly (P < 0.01) smaller in the elderly than in young and middle-aged subjects. Conversely, heat exposure induced a SSNA reduction that was significantly (P < 0.05) smaller in elderly than in young and middle-aged subjects. Compared with SSNA in young individuals, the SSNA change from cold to warm temperature was reduced by 61% in the elderly group. This was not the case, however, for the SSNA responses to the arousal stimulus, which were superimposable in the 3 groups. Conclusions-These data provide the first demonstration of a dichotomy in the MSNA and SSNA responses to aging. They also show that aging markedly impairs thermoregulatory control of SSNA and that this impairment might participate at the age-related SSNA decrease.

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

4.8
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