1959
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ph.21.030159.001323
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Peripheral Circulation

Abstract: During the two years since Peterson's review of the peripheral circulation in the Annual Review of Physiology (1), such a tremendous volume of litera ture on this subject has appeared that the references reviewed in the present paper have had to be selected with extreme care. Also, because the pharma cological aspects of the peripheral circulation were reviewed in the Annual Review of Physiology by Bovet & Carpi in 1957 (2), only those aspects of the pharmacology of the peripheral circulation that shed light o… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

1963
1963
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 145 publications
(159 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“… Here we develop a comprehensive presentation of venous return. Guyton’s venous return curve describes venous return in terms of right atrial pressure, mean circulatory filling pressure, and sympathetic activity. 1 This work demonstrated the key role of venous return in cardiac function, and it has been part of undergraduate medical education since that time. However, experience shows that venous return curves are difficult to present or understand, and have limited direct clinical application.…”
mentioning
confidence: 81%
“… Here we develop a comprehensive presentation of venous return. Guyton’s venous return curve describes venous return in terms of right atrial pressure, mean circulatory filling pressure, and sympathetic activity. 1 This work demonstrated the key role of venous return in cardiac function, and it has been part of undergraduate medical education since that time. However, experience shows that venous return curves are difficult to present or understand, and have limited direct clinical application.…”
mentioning
confidence: 81%