Key result
The depressor response to intravenous trimetaphan correlated with peripheral resistance (P<0.005) and blood volume (P<0.02) in essential hypertension, but not in renovascular hypertension.
Why the study?
Does the immediate depressor response to intravenous trimetaphan correlate differently with haemodynamic indices and intravascular volume in essential versus renovascular hypertension?
Observational (n=57)
Does the immediate depressor response to intravenous trimetaphan correlate differently with haemodynamic indices and intravascular volume in essential versus renovascular hypertension?
Essential and renovascular hypertension exhibit different physiological interrelationships between neurogenic activity, haemodynamics, and intravascular volume, despite similar degrees of acute depressor response to ganglionic blockade.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Supports distinct neurogenic-hemodynamic-volume relationships in essential versus renovascular hypertension; hypothesis-generating, does not yet inform practice.
Tarazi et al. (1973) conducted an observational in Essential and renovascular hypertension (n=57). Intravenous trimetaphan vs. Renovascular hypertension vs essential hypertension was evaluated on Correlation of depressor response to trimetaphan with haemodynamic functions and intravascular volume. The depressor response to intravenous trimetaphan correlated with peripheral resistance (P<0.005) and blood volume (P<0.02) in essential hypertension, but not in renovascular hypertension.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: