Why the study?
Does low-dose nitroglycerin improve splanchnic hemodynamics in patients with cirrhosis?
Does low-dose nitroglycerin improve splanchnic hemodynamics in patients with cirrhosis?
Low-dose nitroglycerin fails to improve splanchnic hemodynamics in patients with cirrhosis, suggesting an impaired cardiopulmonary baroreflex function.
May not support low-dose nitroglycerin for splanchnic effects in cirrhosis; leaves open baroreflex impairment and need for further study.
High doses of nitroglycerin may decrease portal pressure in patients with cirrhosis with untoward effects such as arterial hypotension and a decrease in systemic O2 uptake. In the present study, low doses of nitroglycerin (7 to 15 micrograms per min, i.v.) were administered in 11 patients with cirrhosis in order to unload cardiopulmonary baroreceptor--one of the possible mechanisms by which nitroglycerin may improve splanchnic hemodynamics--and moreover to avoid deleterious systemic effects. Nitroglycerin significantly decreased right atrial pressure (-35%) and pulmonary wedged pressure (-27%) with significant increase in plasma norepinephrine concentration (+23%), which indicated that cardiopulmonary baroreceptor unloading was achieved. Changes in systemic hemodynamics were slight, although significant, with a decrease in arterial pressure (-8%) and an increase in heart rate (+8%); this indicates a minimal effect on high-pressure baroreflexes. In contrast, no significant change was observed in hepatic venous pressure gradient, hepatic blood flow and azygos blood flow. However, the fraction of cardiac output reaching the azygos system significantly increased by 18%. Plasma renin activity did not change significantly. Moreover, O2 transport and uptake were significantly decreased. These findings show that low doses of nitroglycerin failed to improve splanchnic hemodynamics in patients with cirrhosis. These results suggest an impaired cardiopulmonary baroreflex function which is probably located on the efferent arch.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moreau et al. (1989) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: