This study aims to compare the hemodynamic effects of central versus peripheral administration of angiotensin II and bradykinin in conscious dogs.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Preclinical dog comparisons warrant no clinical change; leaves open translation of central-peripheral peptide effects to humans.
A1 though angiotensin I1 (A-11) is a potent direct vasoconstrictor and bradykinin (BK) a potent direct vasodilator, both peptides elicit pressor responses when administered intraventricular ly (IVT) (1). The cardiac and regional changes associated with this rise in pressure in conscious animals remain undocumented. In addition, it is difficult to evaluate t he relative potency of these neuropeptides, since the data reported have been obtained using different doses, species, and anesthetics. The differences between the hemod namic roperties of A-I1 administered IVT or intravenously {IV~ are afso unclear for similar reasons. such a comparison might be of interest to discuss the potential role of these peptides in the central r egulation of blood pressure, especially since the AV3V, a paraventricular region, has been demonstrated to be implicated in the central pressor effect of A-11 in dogs (2). This study was desi ned to investigate and compare the hemodynamic properties of ?/ IVT infusions of A-I1 and BK and 2/ IVT vs IV A-I1 infusions in awake chronically instrumented dogs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chelly et al. (1984) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: