3.8 Article

Vascular remodeling after spinal cord injury

期刊

MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE
卷 35, 期 6, 页码 901-907

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000069755.40046.96

关键词

blood flow; complete spinal cord injury; doppler ultrasound; muscle mass; vascular reactivity

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL65179] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NICHD NIH HHS [HD39676] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Our purpose was to determine whether spinal cord injured (SCI) subjects have decreased femoral artery diameter and maximal hyperemic blood flow when expressed per unit of muscle volume compared with able-bodied (AB) individuals. A secondary purpose was to determine whether blood flow recovery rates were similar between groups. Methods: Blood flow was measured in the femoral artery using Doppler ultrasound after distal thigh cuff occlusion of 4 and 10 min. Muscle mass of the lower leg was determined by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Results: SCI individuals had smaller muscle cross-sectional areas (37%. P=0.001) and volumes (38%, P=0.001) than AB individuals. Furthermore, femoral artery diameter (0.76+/-0.14 vs 0.48+/-0.06 cm. AB vs SCI, P<0.001) and femoral artery maximal blood flow (2050 +/- 520 vs 1220 +/- 240 mL.min(-1), AB vs SCI, P<0.001) were lower in SCI than AB individuals. Femoral artery diameter and maximal blood flow per unit muscle volume did not differ between SCI and AB individuals (P=0.418 and P=0.891, respectively). Blood flow recovery after ischemia was prolonged in SCI compared with AB individuals for both cuff durations (P=0.048). Conclusions: In summary, femoral artery diameter and maximal hyperemic blood flow response per unit muscle volume are not different between SCI and AB individuals. Vascular atrophy after SCI appears to be closely linked to muscle atrophy. Furthermore, the SCI compared with AB individuals had a prolonged time to recovery, which may suggest decreased vessel reactivity.

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

3.8
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