Why the study?
Does a standard liquid meal elicit different haemodynamic responses in patients with primary autonomic failure compared to normal subjects?
Does a standard liquid meal elicit different haemodynamic responses in patients with primary autonomic failure compared to normal subjects?
Postprandial hypotension in primary autonomic failure is driven by an inability to mount compensatory increases in heart rate and cardiac output in response to normal meal-induced splanchnic vasodilation.
Supports postprandial hypotension mechanism in autonomic failure; leaves open targeted interventions pending prospective trials.
The haemodynamic responses to a standard liquid meal were measured in patients with autonomic failure and in normal subjects. Resting superior mesenteric artery blood flow was similar in both groups, but mean supine arterial pressure and the superior mesenteric artery vascular resistance were higher in the patients with autonomic failure than in the normal subjects. After the meal there was a rise in superior mesenteric artery blood flow and a fall in superior mesenteric artery vascular resistance in both groups. Mean arterial blood pressure fell substantially after food in the patients with autonomic failure but not in the normal subjects. The basal heart rate, stroke distance and cardiac index were higher in the patients with autonomic failure, and rose significantly after the meal only in the normal subjects. Forearm blood flow fell and the vascular resistance rose after the meal in the normal subjects but not in the patients with autonomic failure. We conclude that superior mesenteric artery blood flow rose and superior mesenteric artery vascular resistance fell after the meal in the normal subjects and in the patients with autonomic failure. However, in the normal subjects the blood pressure was maintained by factors which include a rise in the heart rate and cardiac output. The lack of such compensatory changes probably accounts for postprandial hypotension in patients with autonomic failure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kooner et al. (1989) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: