4.5 Article

Exaggerated muscle mechanoreflex control of reflex renal vasoconstriction in heart failure

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 90, 期 5, 页码 1714-1719

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/jappl.2001.90.5.1714

关键词

exercise; sympathetic nervous system; renal circulation; congestive heart failure

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [5 MO1 RR-00865-25] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [1R29 HL-56796] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In heart failure (HF) patients, reflex renal vasoconstriction during exercise is exaggerated. We hypothesized that muscle mechanoreceptor control of renal vasoconstriction is exaggerated in HF. Nineteen HF patients and nineteen controls were enrolled in two exercise protocols: 1) low-level rhythmic handgrip (mechanoreceptors and central command) and 2) involuntary biceps contractions (mechanoreceptors). Renal cortical blood flow was measured by positron emission tomography, and renal cortical vascular resistance (RCVR) was calculated. During rhythmic handgrip, peak RCVR was greater in HF patients compared with controls (37 +/- 1 vs. 27 +/- 1 units; P < 0.01). Change in () RCVR tended to be greater as well but did not reach statistical significance (10 +/- 1 vs. 7 +/- 0.9 units; P = 0.13). RCVR was returned to baseline at 2-3 min postexercise in controls but remained significantly elevated in HF patients. During involuntary muscle contractions, peak RCVR was greater in HF patients compared with controls (36 +/- 0.7 vs. 24 +/- 0.5 units; P < 0.0001). The RCVR was also significantly greater in HF patients compared with controls (6 +/- 1 vs. 4 +/- 0.6 units; P = 0.05). The data suggest that reflex renal vasoconstriction is exaggerated in both magnitude and duration during dynamic exercise in HF patients. Given that the exaggerated response was elicited in both the presence and absence of central command, it is clear that intact muscle mechanoreceptor sensitivity contributes to this augmented reflex renal vasoconstriction.

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

4.5
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