4.5 Article

Arterial properties along the upper arm in humans: age-related effects and the consequence of anatomical location

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 108, 期 1, 页码 34-38

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00479.2009

关键词

distensibility; echo-tracking; intima-media thickness; upper arm

资金

  1. Futurum-the Academy of Health Care, Jonkoping County Council
  2. Linkoping University Hospital
  3. Swedish Research Counci [12161]
  4. Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bjarnegard N, Lanne T. Arterial properties along the upper arm in humans: age-related effects and the consequence of anatomical location. J Appl Physiol 108: 34-38, 2010. First published October 29, 2009; doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00479.2009.-The normal aging process of the brachial artery (BA) wall is of specific interest since it is often selected as a model artery in studies of vascular function. With echo-tracking ultrasound, diameter, absolute diameter change, and intima-media thickness (IMT) were registered in 60 healthy subjects, 21-86 yr (30 men), at a proximal, upper third, and distal arterial site along the upper arm. Blood pressure was recorded noninvasively, and the distensibility coefficient (DC) was calculated. The diameter at the proximal site increased with age from 5.5 +/- 0.2 mm in the young subjects to 6.9 +/- 0.3 mm (P < 0.01) in the elderly subjects, concomitantly as IMT increased from 0.40 +/- 0.01 to 0.65 +/- 0.03 mm (P < 0.001). The diameter at the other sites was similar in the young and elderly subjects, whereas IMT increased slightly with age. At the proximal site, DC decreased dramatically from 40.7 +/- 2.2 to 10.1 +/- 0.8 10(-3)/kPa (P < 0.001) with age, whereas hardly no change was seen in the distal upper arm. The principal transit zone between elastic to predominantly muscular artery behavior seems to be located within the proximal part of the brachial artery, emphasizing the importance of carefully defining the arterial examination site.

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