4.7 Article

Vasoactive drugs influence aortic augmentation index independently of pulse-wave velocity in healthy men

期刊

HYPERTENSION
卷 37, 期 6, 页码 1429-1433

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.HYP.37.6.1429

关键词

antihypertensive agents; aorta; arteries; hemodynamics; pulse

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aortic augmentation index, a measure of central systolic blood pressure augmentation arising mainly from pressure-wave reflection, increases with vascular aging. The augmentation index is influenced by aortic pulse-wave velocity (related to aortic stiffness) and by the site and extent of wave reflection. To clarify the relative influence of pulse-wave velocity and wave reflection on the augmentation index, we studied the association between augmentation index, pulse-wave velocity, and age and examined the effects of vasoactive drugs to determine whether altering vascular tone has differential effects on pulse-wave velocity and the augmentation index. We made simultaneous measurements of the augmentation index and carotid-to-femoral pulse-wave velocity in 50 asymptomatic men aged 19 to 74 years at baseline and, in a subset, during the administration of nitroglycerin, angiotensin Il, and saline vehicle. The aortic augmentation index was obtained by radial tonometry (Sphygmocor device, PWV Medical) with the use of an inbuilt radial to aortic transfer function. In multiple regression analysis, the aortic augmentation index was independently correlated only with age (R=0.58, P <0.0001). Nitroglycerin (3 to 300 mug/min IV) reduced the aortic augmentation index from 4.8 +/-2.3% to -11.9 +/-5.3% (n=10, P <0.002). Angiotensin II (75 to 300 ng/min IV) increased the aortic augmentation index from 9.3 +/-2.4% to 18.3 +/-2.9% (n=12, P <0.001). These drugs had small effects on aortic pulse-wave velocity, producing mean chan ges from baseline of <1 m/s (each P <0.05). In healthy men, vasoactive drugs may change aortic augmentation index independently from aortic pulse-wave velocity.

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