Effects of adenosine and adenosine analogues on mean circulatory filling pressure and cardiac output in anesthetized rats
Effects of adenosine and adenosine analogues on mean circulatory filling pressure and cardiac output in anesthetized rats
复制标题
腺苷和腺苷类似物对麻醉大鼠平均循环充盈压和心输出量的影响
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1997
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
R. Tabrizchi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Tabrizchi
The effects of adenosine and adenosine analogues, 2-[p-(2-[carboxyethyl) phenethylamino]-5’-N-ethylcarboxamidoadenosine (CGS 21680) and N6-2-(4-aminophenyl)-ethyladenosine (APNEA), on mean arterial pressure, cardiac output, mean circulatory filling pressure, arterial resistance, venous resistance and heart rate in untreated or treated (with ganglion-blockers mecamylamine and atropine) pentobarbital-anesthetized rats were examined. Infusion of adenosine (100, 300 and 900 µg/kg/min), CGS 21680 (0.1, 0.3 and 0.9 µg/kg/ min) or APNEA (1.0, 3.0 and 9.0 µg/kg/min) reduced mean arterial pressure and arterial resistance in all groups. Adenosine and APNEA also reduced mean circulatory filling pressure, venous resistance and heart rate in untreated animals. Furthermore, APNEA but not adenosine reduced cardiac output. In contrast, CGS 21680 increased cardiac output and heart rate but did not have any effect on mean circulatory filling pressure or venous resistance. In ganglion-blocked rats, APNEA reduced cardiac output, mean circulatory filling pressure and heart rate, while adenosine did not have any effect on these parameters. In addition, APNEA and adenosine reduced arterial resistance but were unable to alter venous resistance while CGS 21680 reduced mean circulatory filling pressure and arterial resistance but did not further affect cardiac output, heart rate and venous resistance in ganglion-blocked animals. The results of the present study suggest that adenosine and APNEA dilate arterioles and vein, whereas CGS 21680 causes arterial dilatation but not venodilatation in untreated animals due to hypotension-induced sympathetic activation. A possible explanation for the present observations could be differences in the distribution of vascular A2 versus A3 adenosine receptors in the venous circulation.
