4.7 Article

Nitric oxide dependency of arterial pressure-induced changes in renal interstitial hydrostatic pressure in dogs

期刊

CIRCULATION RESEARCH
卷 88, 期 3, 页码 347-351

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.RES.88.3.347

关键词

renal regional blood flow; laser-Doppler flowmetry; nitrate/nitrite excretion

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL-51306, HL-18426] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A direct relationship between renal arterial pressure (RAP) and renal interstitial hydrostatic pressure (RIHP) has been shown under conditions of efficient renal blood flow autoregulation. Experiments were performed in six anesthetized dogs to evaluate whether these RIHP responses to changes in RAP were modified during nitric oxide (NO) inhibition with nitro-L-arginine (NLA) or after administration of NO donor agents. A microtip catheter transducer was placed underneath the renal capsule to measure RIHP. Stepwise reductions in RAP (140 to 80 mm Hg) during control conditions resulted in decreases in RIHP from its basal value of 4.7+/-1.1 mm Hg with a slope of 0.04+/-0.026 mm Hg mm Hg-1 along with decreases in urinary nitrate/nitrite excretion rate (UNNOxV). Renal cortical and medullary blood flows, measured by laser-Doppler flowmetry, exhibited high autoregulatory efficiency over this RAP range. The changes in RIHP during alterations in RAP were positively correlated (r=0.743; P<0.001) with the changes in UNOxV but not with cortical or medullary blood flow. NLA infusion decreased RIHP to 1.9+/-0.5 mm Hg and also reduced UNNOxV from 1.8+/-0.2 to 0.9+/-0.01 nmol.min(-1).g(-1). Infusion of NO donors restored RIHP (4.3+/-0.9 mm Hg) and UNOxV (1.5+/-0.2 nmol.min(-1).g(-1)). During NLA infusion, the RIHP responses to reductions in RAP were markedly attenuated and were not restored even during constant-rate infusion of NO donors. The results suggest that changes in RIHP in response to alterations in RAP are associated with changes in intrarenal NO, suggesting a direct effect of NO to regulate RIHP.

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