4.3 Editorial Material

Current computational models do not reveal the importance of the nervous system in long-term control of arterial pressure

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL PHYSIOLOGY
卷 94, 期 4, 页码 389-396

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1113/expphysiol.2008.043281

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL116476, R01 HL076312, R01 HL076312-05] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Arterial pressure is regulated over long periods of time by neural, hormonal and local control mechanisms, which ultimately determine the total blood volume and how it is distributed between the various vascular compartments of the circulation. A full understanding of the complex interplay of these mechanisms can be greatly facilitated by the use of mathematical models. In 1967, Guyton and Coleman published a model for long-term control of arterial pressure that focused on renal control of body sodium and water and thus total blood volume. The central point of their model is that the long-term level of arterial pressure is determined exclusively by the 'renal function curve', which relates arterial pressure to urinary excretion of salt and water. The contribution of the sympathetic nervous system to setting the long-term level of arterial pressure in the model is limited. In light of the overwhelming evidence for a major role of the sympathetic nervous system in long-term control of arterial pressure and the pathogenesis of hypertension, new mathematical models for long-term control of arterial pressure may be necessary. Despite the prominence and general acceptance of the Guyton-Coleman model in the field of hypertension research, we argue here that it overestimates the importance of renal control of body fluids and total blood volume in blood pressure regulation. Furthermore, we suggest that it is possible to construct an alternative model in which sympathetic nervous system activity plays an important role in long-term control of arterial pressure independent of its effects on total blood volume.

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

4.3
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