Key result
Alpha 1-stimulation with methoxamine resulted in higher mean circulatory filling pressure (13.3 vs 10.6 mmHg) and central blood volume compared with alpha 2-stimulation using UK 14304-18.
Why the study?
The peripheral circulatory effects of alpha 1- versus alpha 2-adrenoceptor stimulation on venous capacitance were compared in intact dogs.
Does alpha 1-adrenoceptor stimulation compared to alpha 2-adrenoceptor stimulation differentially affect venous capacitance in intact dogs?
Does alpha 1-adrenoceptor stimulation compared to alpha 2-adrenoceptor stimulation differentially affect venous capacitance in intact dogs?
Alpha 1-adrenoceptor stimulation decreases effective vascular compliance and increases mean circulatory filling pressure more than alpha 2-adrenoceptor stimulation in intact dogs.
Differential alpha-adrenergic venous effects seen in dogs; hypothesis-generating and leaves open human translation.
The peripheral circulatory effects of alpha 1-adrenoceptor stimulation with methoxamine hydrochloride were compared with those of alpha 2-stimulation with UK 14304-18 in 12 intact dogs. Doses of each agent were infused to increase systemic vascular resistance and arterial pressure 50 and then 100% above control. Heart rate was controlled with atropine. At the higher dose, methoxamine increased mean aortic pressure (PAo) from a control of 77.3 +/- 1.6 to 152.9 +/- 3.2 mmHg, mean circulatory filling pressure (MCFP) from 8.0 +/- 0.4 to 13.3 +/- 1.3 mmHg, and central blood volume (CBV) from 21.3 +/- 1.1 to 25.9 +/- 1.5 ml X kg-1, whereas cardiac output did not change. UK 14304-18 increased PAo from 78.1 +/- 2.6 to 148.9 +/- 2.7 mmHg, MCFP from 7.9 +/- 0.4 to 10.6 +/- 0.4 mmHg, and CBV from 21.0 +/- 1.1 to 24.1 +/- 1.5 ml X kg-1, whereas cardiac output decreased from 151.7 +/- 9.4 to 126.3 +/- 5.8 ml X kg-1 X min-1. Mean circulatory filling pressure and CBV were higher with methoxamine than with UK 14304-18. Effective vascular compliance, determined by serial measurements of MCFP during ganglionic blockade after rapid changes in blood volume, decreased from a control value of 1.9 +/- 0.1 to 1.3 +/- 0.3 ml X mmHg-1 X kg-1 with methoxamine, but did not change with UK 14304-18 (1.9 +/- 0.1 ml X mmHg-1 X kg-1). At any given change in blood volume, there was a higher MCFP with alpha 1-stimulation compared with alpha 2-stimulation. Both agents decreased unstressed vascular volume.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Appleton et al. (1986) studied Intact dogs (animal model) (n=12). Methoxamine hydrochloride vs. UK 14304-18 was evaluated on Mean circulatory filling pressure (MCFP) at higher dose. Alpha 1-stimulation with methoxamine resulted in higher mean circulatory filling pressure (13.3 vs 10.6 mmHg) and central blood volume compared with alpha 2-stimulation using UK 14304-18.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:
More from AJP Heart and Circulatory Physiology