International journal of radiation biology · 2010
Static magnetic field blood pressure buffering, baroreflex vs. vascular blood pressure control mechanism.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gmitrov Juraj
Аннотация
PURPOSE: We compared the effect of static magnetic field (SMF) and verapamil, a potent vascular calcium channel blocking agent, on sudden elevation in blood pressure in conjunction with arterial baroreflex sensitivity (BRS) and microcirculation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-four experiments were performed on conscious rabbits sedated using pentobarbital intravenous (i.v.) infusion (5 mg kg(-1) h(-1)). Mean femoral artery blood pressure (MAP), heart rate, BRS and ear lobe skin microcirculatory blood flow, estimated using microphotoelectric plethysmography (MPPG), were simultaneously measured after a 40 min exposure of the sinocarotid baroreceptors to 350 mT SMF, generated by Nd(2)-Fe(14)-B magnets, or 30 min of verapamil i.v. administration (20 microg kg(-1) min(-1)). BRS was assessed from heart rate and MAP responses to i.v. bolus of nitroprusside and phenylephrine.
RESULTS: The decrease in phenylephrine-induced abrupt elevation in MAP (DeltaMAP(AE)) was significantly larger after verapamil than after SMF exposure. DeltaMAP(AE) inversely correlated with verapamil-induced significant increase in DeltaMPPG (r = 0.53, p < 0.000) and with SMF-induced significant increase in DeltaBRS (r = 0.47, p < 0.016).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that verapamil-potentiated vascular blood pressure buffering mechanism was more effective than SMF-potentiated baroreflex-mediated blood pressure buffering mechanism, and a potential benefit of both approaches in cardiovascular conditions with abrupt high elevation in blood pressure.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-four experiments were performed on conscious rabbits sedated using pentobarbital intravenous (i.v.) infusion (5 mg kg(-1) h(-1)). Mean femoral artery blood pressure (MAP), heart rate, BRS and ear lobe skin microcirculatory blood flow, estimated using microphotoelectric plethysmography (MPPG), were simultaneously measured after a 40 min exposure of the sinocarotid baroreceptors to 350 mT SMF, generated by Nd(2)-Fe(14)-B magnets, or 30 min of verapamil i.v. administration (20 microg kg(-1) min(-1)). BRS was assessed from heart rate and MAP responses to i.v. bolus of nitroprusside and phenylephrine.
RESULTS: The decrease in phenylephrine-induced abrupt elevation in MAP (DeltaMAP(AE)) was significantly larger after verapamil than after SMF exposure. DeltaMAP(AE) inversely correlated with verapamil-induced significant increase in DeltaMPPG (r = 0.53, p < 0.000) and with SMF-induced significant increase in DeltaBRS (r = 0.47, p < 0.016).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that verapamil-potentiated vascular blood pressure buffering mechanism was more effective than SMF-potentiated baroreflex-mediated blood pressure buffering mechanism, and a potential benefit of both approaches in cardiovascular conditions with abrupt high elevation in blood pressure.