1979
DOI: 10.1161/01.str.10.6.711
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of hemorrhagic hypotension on the cerebral circulation. I. Cerebral blood flow and pial arteriolar caliber.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
66
1
2

Year Published

1983
1983
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 168 publications
(73 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
4
66
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In Fig. 4, model predictions are compared with several sets of experimental data (7,12,21,22). When all three mechanisms are included, the autoregulation predicted by the model is consistent with that seen experimentally.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 56%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…In Fig. 4, model predictions are compared with several sets of experimental data (7,12,21,22). When all three mechanisms are included, the autoregulation predicted by the model is consistent with that seen experimentally.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 56%
“…The contribution of the metabolic response to autoregulation has not been previously evaluated. Including the metabolic response with both the myogenic and shear-dependent responses produces a level of autoregulation close to that which is observed in cerebral (7,12,21), mesenteric (14), and renal (30,31) tissue. The current model shows that the combined effects of the myogenic and metabolic responses are necessary and sufficient to generate autoregulatory behavior, despite the contrary effect of the shear-dependent response.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 57%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…No differences in baseline CBF, ASL CVR, OEF, or CMRO 2 were found. This may have been caused by the large intersubject variability in CBF, OEF, and CMRO 2 38,39 measurements and our relatively small sample size. For instance, the study performed by Coles et al 38 showed intersubject coefficients of variation of 13.5%, 7.3%, and 12.8% for CBF, OEF, and CMRO 2 , respectively, and Parkes et al 39 found an intersubject variation of up to 100% perfusion difference.…”
Section: Patients Versus Controlsmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…This has been observed repeatedly by measuring the re maining margin of vasodilation (i.e., vasodilatory capacity) (Novack et al, 1953;Harper, 1965;Sha piro et al, 1966;Ackerman et al, 1973;Norrving et al, 1982;Vorstrup et al, 1986). Since autoregula tion is commonly accepted as being essentially a regional function of the vasculature (Skinhj21j and Paulson, 1969;Paulson et al, 1972;Strandgaard and Paulson, 1984), examination of the regional re lationship between OEF and the vascular respon siveness to vasodilator should allow us to delineate the critical border at which the resistance vessels may reach maximum vasodilation (Fazekas and Alman, 1964;MacKenzie et al, 1979) and its OEF value.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%