4.3 Article

Autonomic dysfunction affects cerebral neurovascular coupling

期刊

CLINICAL AUTONOMIC RESEARCH
卷 21, 期 6, 页码 395-403

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10286-011-0129-3

关键词

Autonomic nervous system; Neurovascular coupling; Vascular resistance; Transcranial Doppler ultrasonography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Autonomic failure (AF) affects the peripheral vascular system, but little is known about its influence on cerebrovascular regulation. Patients with familial amyloidotic polyneuropathy (FAP) were studied as a model for AF. Ten mild (FAPm), 10 severe (FAPs) autonomic dysfunction FAP patients, and 15 healthy controls were monitored in supine and sitting positions for arterial blood pressure (ABP) and heart rate (HR) with arterial volume clamping, and for blood flow velocity (BFV) in posterior (PCA) and contralateral middle cerebral arteries (MCA) with transcranial Doppler. Analysis included resting BFV, cerebrovascular resistance parameters (cerebrovascular resistance index, CVRi; resistance area product, RAP; and critical closing pressure, CrCP), and neurovascular coupling through visually evoked BFV responses in PCA (gain, rate time, attenuation, and natural frequency). In non-stimulation conditions, in each position, there were no significant differences between the groups, regarding HR, BP, resting BFV, and vascular resistance parameters. Sitting ABP was higher than in supine in the three groups, although only significantly in controls. Mean BFV was lower in sitting in all the groups, lacking statistical significance only in FAPs PCA. CVRi and CrCP increased with sitting in all the groups, while RAP increased in controls but decreased in FAPm and FAPs. In visual stimulation conditions, FAPs comparing to controls had a significant decrease of natural frequency, in supine and sitting, and of rate time and gain in sitting position. These results demonstrate that cerebrovascular regulation is affected in FAP subjects with AF, and that it worsens with orthostasis.

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

4.3
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