4.7 Article

Genioglossal but not palatal muscle activity relates closely to pharyngeal pressure

期刊

出版社

AMER THORACIC SOC
DOI: 10.1164/ajrccm.162.3.9912067

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR02635] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL 48531, HL 60292] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [M01RR002635] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [P50HL060292, R01HL048531] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The stimuli controlling pharyngeal dilator muscles are poorly defined. Local mechanoreceptors are a leading possibility. To address this, we assessed the relationship between two dilator muscle electromyograms (EMGs, i.e., genioglossus [GG-an inspiratory phasic muscle], tensor palatini [TP-a tonically active muscle]) and potential stimuli (i.e., epiglottic pressure [Pepi], airflow [(V) over dot], and pharyngeal resistance [Rpha]). Fifteen normal subjects were studied, during wakefulness and stable non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep. The GGEMG and TPEMG were assessed during basal breathing and during inspiratory resistive loading (four loads, done in triplicate), while quantifying Pepi and choanal pressures (Pcho, Millar catheters) plus (V) over dot. There was a strong correlation between Pepi and GGEMG during wakefulness in most subjects (9 of 15 had absolute R > 0.7 [p < 0.05], group mean R = -0.62, p < 0.05). These correlations were less robust during NREM sleep (8 of 15 absolute R > 0.6 [p < 0.05], group mean R = -0.39, ns). The slope of the Pepi versus GGEMG relationship was greater during wakefulness than sleep (-0.67 versus -0.39% max/cm H2O, p < 0.05). No significant correlations were observed between TPEMG and any of the measured potential stimuli. We conclude that intrapharyngeal pressure may modulate genioglossus activity during wakefulness, with a fall in muscle responsiveness during sleep. The activity of the TP was not clearly influenced by any measured local stimulus either awake or asleep.

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