4.5 Article

Differential distribution of muscle and skin sympathetic nerve activity in patients with end-stage renal disease

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 105, 期 6, 页码 1873-1876

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.90849.2008

关键词

dialysis

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [9F32 DK-080995, 1RO1 HL-071792, 1RO1 HL-084525]
  2. National Center for Research Resources /NIH [M01 RR-00043]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

distribution of muscle and skin sympathetic nerve activity in patients with end-stage renal disease. J Appl Physiol 105: 1873-1876, 2008. First published October 9, 2008; doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.90849.2008. End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is characterized by resting sympathetic overactivity. Baseline muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA), which is governed by baroreflexes and chemoreflexes, is elevated in ESRD. Whether resting skin sympathetic nerve activity (SSNA), which is independent from baroreflex and chemoreflex control, is also elevated has never been reported in renal failure. The purpose of this study was to determine whether sympathetic overactivity of ESRD is generalized to include the skin distribution. We measured sympathetic nerve activity to both muscle and skin using microneurography in eight ESRD patients and eight controls. MSNA was significantly (P = 0.025) greater in ESRD (37.3 +/- 3.6 bursts/min) when compared with controls (23.1 +/- 4.4 bursts/min). However, SSNA was not elevated in ESRD (ESRD vs. controls, 17.6 +/- 2.2 vs. 16.1 +/- 1.7 bustst/min, P = 0.61). Similar results were obtained when MSNA was quantified as bursts per 100 heartbeats. We report the novel finding that although sympathetic activity directed to muscle is significantly elevated, activity directed to skin is not elevated in ESRD. The differential distribution of sympathetic outflow to the muscle vs. skin in ESRD is similar to the pattern seen in other disease states characterized by sympathetic overactivity such as heart failure and obesity.

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

4.5
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