Blog
About

0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Renal versus Femoral Hemodynamic Response to Endothelium-Derived Relaxing Factor Synthesis Inhibition

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Systemic inhibition of endothelium-derived relaxing factor (EDRF) synthesis leads to acute hypertension and increased peripheral vascular resistance. The changes in vascular resistance are not evenly distributed to all vascular beds. In this study, we compared the renal and femoral hemodynamic responses to EDRF synthesis inhibition. Renal blood flow (RBF) and femoral blood flow (FBF) were assessed in the presence and absence of DuP 753, an angiotensin II receptor antagonist. Inhibition of EDRF synthesis by a bolus dose of L<sup>w</sup>-nitroarginine methyl ester ( L-NAME) increased blood pressure (BP) by 21 ± 1 mm Hg(p < 0.001) and decreased RBF by 32 ± 5% (from 5.9 ± 0.5 to 3.9 ± 0.3 ml/min/g kidney weight; p < 0.005) while FBF remained unchanged (9.5 ± 0.4 versus 9.4 ± 0.4 ml/min). Renal vascular resistance (RVR) increased by 83 ± 16% (p < 0.001), compared with only a 24 ± 6% increase in femoral vascular resistance (FVR; p < 0.005). To eliminate the influence of systemic hypertension, we returned organ perfusion pressure to pre- L-NAME levels by partial aortic constriction. The kidney maintained RBF by decreasing RVR by 8 ± 2% (p < 0.02), while FBF decreased by 15 ± 5% (p < 0.01). When rats were pretreated with DuP 753, L-NAME still increased BP by 22 ± 2 mm Hg, but RVR increased by only 26 ± 5%(from 13.2 ± 1.6 to 16.8 ± 2.7;p < 0.01) and RBF did not change. DuP 753 had no effect on the femoral vascular response to L-NAME. FBF did not change (9.3 ± 0.2 versus 9.8 ± 0.7), while FVR increased by 23 ± 3% (from 8.7 ± 0.3 to 10.8 ± 0.6; p < 0.001). These results suggest that EDRF is a more important regulator of RBF than of FBF. We conclude that the kidney has a disproportionate reliance on EDRF to maintain RBF compared to FBF.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          JVR
          J Vasc Res
          10.1159/issn.1018-1172
          Journal of Vascular Research
          S. Karger AG
          1018-1172
          1423-0135
          1993
          1993
          23 September 2008
          : 30
          : 4
          : 218-223
          Affiliations
          Hypertension and Vascular Research Division, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Mich., USA
          Article
          158997 J Vasc Res 1993;30:218–223
          10.1159/000158997
          8357952
          © 1993 S. Karger AG, Basel

          Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

          Page count
          Pages: 6
          Categories
          Research Paper

          Comments

          Comment on this article