Why the study?
Does metabolic stimulation or vascular anatomy govern regional myocardial blood flow patterns in open-chest dogs?
Does metabolic stimulation or vascular anatomy govern regional myocardial blood flow patterns in open-chest dogs?
Metabolic vasoregulation dominates regional myocardial blood flow distribution in normal physiological states, whereas vascular anatomy governs it during maximal adenosine vasodilation.
Regional myocardial blood flows are markedly heterogeneous. Fractal analysis shows strong near-neighbor correlation. In experiments to distinguish control by vascular anatomy vs. local vasomotion, coronary flows were increased in open-chest dogs by stimulating myocardial metabolism (catecholamines + atropine) with and without adenosine. During control states mean left ventricular (LV) myocardial blood flows (microspheres) were 0.5-1 ml·g(-1)·min(-1) and increased to 2-3 ml·g(-1)·min(-1) with catecholamine infusion and to ∼4 ml·g(-1)·min(-1) with adenosine (Ado). Flow heterogeneity was similar in all states: relative dispersion (RD = SD/mean) was ∼25%, using LV pieces 0.1-0.2% of total. During catecholamine infusion local flows increased in proportion to the mean flows in 45% of the LV, "tracking" closely (increased proportionately to mean flow), while ∼40% trended toward the mean. Near-neighbor regional flows remained strongly spatially correlated, with fractal dimension D near 1.2 (Hurst coefficient 0.8). The spatial patterns remain similar at varied levels of metabolic stimulation inferring metabolic dominance. In contrast, adenosine vasodilation increased flows eightfold times control while destroying correlation with the control state. The Ado-induced spatial patterns differed from control but were self-consistent, inferring that with full vasodilation the relaxed arterial anatomy dominates the distribution. We conclude that vascular anatomy governs flow distributions during adenosine vasodilation but that metabolic vasoregulation dominates in normal physiological states.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yipintsoi et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: