Seagard J L, Hopp F A, Drummond H A, Van Wynsberghe D M
Zablocki Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Milwaukee, WI 53295.
Circ Res. 1993 May;72(5):1011-22. doi: 10.1161/01.res.72.5.1011.
This study was performed to determine if selective elimination of afferent input from two different types of previously described baroreceptors altered the ability of the dog to regulate blood pressure (BP), examining specifically if there was differential loss of baroreceptor control of tonic levels of baseline pressure versus dynamic changes in pressure. In the first series of experiments in this study, anodal block of the carotid sinus nerve was used to selectively block afferent input in a sequence from large-diameter A-fiber carotid baroreceptors (mostly type I) to smaller A-fiber and nonmyelinated C-fiber baroreceptors (mostly type II). In the second series of experiments, anesthetic block of the carotid sinus nerve with bupivacaine was used to selectively eliminate afferent input in reverse order from anodal block, first blocking input from baroreceptors with small afferent fibers and then additionally eliminating input from the larger-diameter A-fiber baroreceptors. The effects of selective elimination of each baroreceptor type were determined by monitoring baseline BP during constant carotid sinus pressure (CSP) perfusion of a vascularly isolated carotid sinus (tonic control) and obtaining baroreflex sensitivity (slope) during ramp pressure stimulations of the carotid sinus (dynamic control) under various blocking conditions. Low levels of anodal block significantly attenuated baroreflex sensitivity (-0.84 +/- 0.11 versus -0.63 +/- 0.10 mm Hg BP/mm Hg CSP) at levels of block that had no effect on tonic baseline BP (158.41 +/- 9.5 versus 160.7 +/- 9.5 mm Hg BP). In contrast, low levels of bupivacaine block produced significant increases in tonic BP (158.8 +/- 6.4 versus 169.0 +/- 6.5 mm Hg BP), whereas there was no effect on dynamic baroreflex sensitivity (-0.85 +/- 0.08 versus -0.73 +/- 0.08 mm Hg BP/mm Hg CSP). Thus, blocking large A-fiber baroreceptors resulted in significant decreases in baroreflex sensitivity without changes in baseline levels of BP, indicating primarily an attenuation in dynamic baroreflex regulation. Blocking of smaller A-fiber and unmyelinated C-fiber baroreceptors resulted in smaller decreases in baroreflex sensitivity and significant elevations in baseline BP, indicating a loss of tonic control of pressure. These results suggest that the two types of baroreceptors contribute differently to the regulation of blood pressure.
本研究旨在确定选择性消除来自两种不同类型的先前描述的压力感受器的传入输入是否会改变犬调节血压(BP)的能力,具体研究基线压力的紧张性水平与压力动态变化的压力感受器控制是否存在差异丧失。在本研究的第一系列实验中,使用颈动脉窦神经的阳极阻滞按顺序选择性地阻断传入输入,从大直径A纤维颈动脉压力感受器(主要是I型)到较小的A纤维和无髓鞘C纤维压力感受器(主要是II型)。在第二系列实验中,使用布比卡因对颈动脉窦神经进行麻醉阻滞,以与阳极阻滞相反的顺序选择性地消除传入输入,首先阻断来自具有小传入纤维的压力感受器的输入,然后额外消除来自较大直径A纤维压力感受器的输入。通过在血管分离的颈动脉窦的恒定颈动脉窦压力(CSP)灌注期间监测基线BP(紧张性控制)以及在各种阻断条件下颈动脉窦的斜坡压力刺激期间获得压力感受性反射敏感性(斜率)(动态控制)来确定每种压力感受器类型选择性消除的效果。低水平的阳极阻滞在对紧张性基线BP无影响的阻滞水平下显著减弱压力感受性反射敏感性(-0.84±0.11对-0.63±0.10 mmHg BP/mmHg CSP)(158.41±9.5对160.7±9.5 mmHg BP)。相比之下,低水平的布比卡因阻滞导致紧张性BP显著升高(158.8±6.4对169.0±6.5 mmHg BP),而对动态压力感受性反射敏感性无影响(-0.85±0.08对-0.73±0.08 mmHg BP/mmHg CSP)。因此,阻断大A纤维压力感受器导致压力感受性反射敏感性显著降低,而BP基线水平无变化,主要表明动态压力感受性反射调节减弱。阻断较小的A纤维和无髓鞘C纤维压力感受器导致压力感受性反射敏感性降低较小,且基线BP显著升高,表明压力的紧张性控制丧失。这些结果表明,两种类型的压力感受器对血压调节的贡献不同。