Why the study?
Do patients with essential hypertension exhibit generalized sympathetic activation during stimulation tasks compared to normotensive controls?
Do patients with essential hypertension exhibit generalized sympathetic activation during stimulation tasks compared to normotensive controls?
The exaggerated pressor response to stimulation in essential hypertension is specific to the cardiovascular system rather than a result of generalized sympathetic nervous system activation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Exaggerated BP reactivity in essential hypertension is cardiovascular-specific; supports targeted SNS hypotheses but leaves mechanisms open for prospective study.
We asked whether exaggerated blood pressure (BP) reactivity in patients with essential hypertension (HT) is a sign of specific activation of the cardiovascular system or of generalized sympathetic activation. Fourteen patients with essential hypertension and 14 matched normotensive (NT) controls were subjected to tasks involving attentional demands, mental arithmetic, a cold pressor test and isometric muscular contraction. Systolic and diastolic BPs, skin and muscle blood flows, heart rate, skin conductance level and fluctuations during each task were recorded. Urine samples for determination of epinephrine and norepinephrine excretion were collected after task completion. All tasks caused BP increases in both groups. HT showed greater absolute and percentage BP reactivity than NT during isometric muscle contraction. Variables for which reactivity differences were observed were poorly correlated across tasks both in HT and NT, whereas resting values prior to each task were highly correlated in both groups. Skin conductance activity, epinephrine and norepinephrine excretion rates being examples of non-cardiovascular sympathetic nervous system (SNS) indicators did not separate HT from NT. Thus, the exaggerated pressor response in HT is not accompanied by signs of generalized SNS activation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fredrikson et al. (1985) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: