Why the study?
Does carotid baroreceptor function differ between hypertensive and normotensive subjects, and is it altered by hypotensive therapy?
Does carotid baroreceptor function differ between hypertensive and normotensive subjects, and is it altered by hypotensive therapy?
Carotid baroreceptors are re-set to the actual blood pressure level in hypertensive patients, maintaining their functional gain even during hypotensive therapy.
Should not alter hypotensive strategies based on baroreceptor testing; supports resetting without gain loss in observational cohorts.
Carotid baroreceptor function has been studied in twenty-five patients with essential hypertension and in ten normotensive control subjects of corresponding age. The carotid baroreceptors were stimulated by increasing the transmural pressure over the carotid arteries by the application of negative pressure in a box enclosing the neck. Stimulation elicited significant decreases in intra-arterial blood pressure, heart rate and cardiac index in both hypertensive and normotensive subjects. Both groups also showed a significant decrease in stroke index and a significant increase in total peripheral vascular resistance index. The response to carotid sinus stimulation did not differ significantly between the two groups. In fourteen of the hypertensive subjects, carotid baroreceptor function was studied after 4 months of saluretic therapy, mefruside, and in nine of these patients after additional treatment with a beta-receptor blocking drug, alprenolol, for another 4 months. Both mefruside and alprenolol induced a significant decrease in mean arterial blood pressure but the response to the carotid baroreceptor stimulation was not significantly altered. The findings indicate that the carotid baroreceptor is re-set to the actual blood pressure level, with little or no change in gain in hypertensive subjects both without and during hypotensive therapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bevegård et al. (1977) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: