PURPOSE: Response of myocardial blood flow (MBF) to sympathetic stimulation with cold is modulated by endothelium-related factors and is typically altered in the presence of coronary risk factors. Determinants of flow response to cold pressor testing (CPT) in normal volunteers at low risk for CAD remain less well defined, especially relative to baseline conditions such as hemodynamics and MBF, plasma substrate and lipid levels, and total pharmacologically stimulated vasodilator capacity. METHODS: In 50 normal volunteers (42+/-13 years; 31 women) without coronary risk factors, insulin resistance, or family history of diabetes/premature CAD, MBF was measured with (13)N-ammonia and PET at baseline, during CPT, and during pharmacologic hyperemia. RESULTS: Sympathetic stimulation with CPT raised heart rate and blood pressure and thus MBF (Delta MBF=0.23+/-0.09 ml/min/g). MBF response, defined in absolute flow units as the difference between CPT and baseline, was independent of age, gender, heart rate, and blood pressure and rate-pressure product (RPP) at baseline as well as plasma substrate and lipid levels with the exception of an association with HDL cholesterol (rho=0.40, p=0.005) but depended on the change in RPP from rest (rho=0.33, p=0.019). Finally, changes in coronary vascular resistance in response to CPT were associated with changes in pharmacologic vasodilation (rho=0.56, p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: MBF response to sympathetic stimulation with cold (NO-mediated endothelium-dependent vasomotion), reflecting the functional state of the coronary endothelium, was independent of gender, age, and resting heart conditions. It was modulated by HDL cholesterol levels, even in healthy volunteers, and also related to pharmacologically stimulated vasodilator capacity at the coronary vascular resistance level.
PURPOSE: Response of myocardial blood flow (MBF) to sympathetic stimulation with cold is modulated by endothelium-related factors and is typically altered in the presence of coronary risk factors. Determinants of flow response to cold pressor testing (CPT) in normal volunteers at low risk for CAD remain less well defined, especially relative to baseline conditions such as hemodynamics and MBF, plasma substrate and lipid levels, and total pharmacologically stimulated vasodilator capacity. METHODS: In 50 normal volunteers (42+/-13 years; 31 women) without coronary risk factors, insulin resistance, or family history of diabetes/premature CAD, MBF was measured with (13)N-ammonia and PET at baseline, during CPT, and during pharmacologic hyperemia. RESULTS: Sympathetic stimulation with CPT raised heart rate and blood pressure and thus MBF (Delta MBF=0.23+/-0.09 ml/min/g). MBF response, defined in absolute flow units as the difference between CPT and baseline, was independent of age, gender, heart rate, and blood pressure and rate-pressure product (RPP) at baseline as well as plasma substrate and lipid levels with the exception of an association with HDL cholesterol (rho=0.40, p=0.005) but depended on the change in RPP from rest (rho=0.33, p=0.019). Finally, changes in coronary vascular resistance in response to CPT were associated with changes in pharmacologic vasodilation (rho=0.56, p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: MBF response to sympathetic stimulation with cold (NO-mediated endothelium-dependent vasomotion), reflecting the functional state of the coronary endothelium, was independent of gender, age, and resting heart conditions. It was modulated by HDL cholesterol levels, even in healthy volunteers, and also related to pharmacologically stimulated vasodilator capacity at the coronary vascular resistance level.
Authors: M F Di Carli; D Bianco-Batlles; M E Landa; A Kazmers; H Groehn; O Muzik; G Grunberger Journal: Circulation Date: 1999-08-24 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Benjamin J Ansell; Karol E Watson; Alan M Fogelman; Mohamad Navab; Gregg C Fonarow Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-10-19 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Roxana Campisi; Lauren Nathan; Miguel Hernandez Pampaloni; Heiko Schöder; James W Sayre; Gautam Chaudhuri; Heinrich R Schelbert Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Rodica Pop-Busui; Ian Kirkwood; Helena Schmid; Victor Marinescu; Justin Schroeder; Dennis Larkin; Elina Yamada; David M Raffel; Martin J Stevens Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-12-21 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Naoya Hattori; Oliver Schnell; Frank M Bengel; Julian Rihl; Stephan G Nekolla; Alexander E Drzezga; Eberhard Standl; Markus Schwaiger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2002-04-24 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Manuel J Quiñones; Miguel Hernandez-Pampaloni; Heinrich Schelbert; Isabel Bulnes-Enriquez; Xochitl Jimenez; Gustavo Hernandez; Roxana De La Rosa; Yun Chon; Huiying Yang; Susanne B Nicholas; Tamara Modilevsky; Katherine Yu; Katja Van Herle; Lawrence W Castellani; Robert Elashoff; Willa A Hsueh Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-05-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Keiichiro Yoshinaga; Osamu Manabe; Chietsugu Katoh; Li Chen; Ran Klein; Masanao Naya; Robert A deKemp; Kathryn Williams; Rob S B Beanlands; Nagara Tamaki Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-07-13 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Thomas H Schindler; Xiao-Li Zhang; Gabriella Vincenti; Leila Mhiri; René Lerch; Heinrich R Schelbert Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Susan P Bell; Douglas W Adkisson; Henry Ooi; Douglas B Sawyer; Mark A Lawson; Marvin W Kronenberg Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2013-10-29 Impact factor: 5.712