4.3 Article

Glycopyrrolate abolishes the exercise-induced increase in cerebral perfusion in humans

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL PHYSIOLOGY
卷 95, 期 10, 页码 1016-1025

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1113/expphysiol.2010.054346

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Brain blood vessels contain muscarinic receptors that are important for cerebral blood flow (CBF) regulation, but whether a cholinergic receptor mechanism is involved in the exercise-induced increase in cerebral perfusion or affects cerebral metabolism remains unknown. We evaluated CBF and cerebral metabolism (from arterial and internal jugular venous O(2), glucose and lactate differences), as well as the middle cerebral artery mean blood velocity (MCA V(mean); transcranial Doppler ultrasound) during a sustained static handgrip contraction at 40% of maximal voluntary contraction (n = 9) and the MCA V(mean) during ergometer cycling (n = 8). Separate, randomized and counterbalanced trials were performed in control (no drug) conditions and following muscarinic cholinergic receptor blockade by glycopyrrolate. Glycopyrrolate increased resting heart rate from similar to 60 to similar to 110 beats min-1 (P < 0.01) and cardiac output by similar to 40% (P < 0.05), but did not affect mean arterial pressure. The central cardiovascular responses to exercise with glycopyrrolate were similar to the control responses, except that cardiac output did not increase during static handgrip with glycopyrrolate. Glycopyrrolate did not significantly affect cerebral metabolism during static handgrip, but a parallel increase in MCA V(mean) (similar to 16%; P < 0.01) and CBF (similar to 12%; P < 0.01) during static handgrip, as well as the increase in MCA V(mean) during cycling (similar to 15%; P < 0.01), were abolished by glycopyrrolate (P < 0.05). Thus, during both cycling and static handgrip, a cholinergic receptor mechanism is important for the exercise-induced increase in cerebral perfusion without affecting the cerebral metabolic rate for oxygen.

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