AJP Legacy AJP: Endocrinology and Metabolism
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Am J Physiol 201: 276-280, 1961;
0002-9513/61 $5.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hardin, R. A.
Right arrow Articles by Haddy, F. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hardin, R. A.
Right arrow Articles by Haddy, F. J.

Effect of epinephrine and norepinephrine on coronary vascular resistance in dogs

Robert A. Hardin 1, Jerry B. Scott 1, and Francis J. Haddy 1

1 Environmental Medicine Division, US Army Medical Research Laboratory, Fort Knox, Kentucky

The effects of intracoronary injection and infusion of epinephrine and norepinephrine have been studied in the beating and fibrillating dog heart. The heart performed no external work and coronary perfusion pressure was measured with the rate of blood flow through the coronary vascular bed held constant. Injection of both agents most often produced a fleeting rise in pressure followed by a prolonged fall in pressure. In the beating heart, the pressure rise preceded rise in heart rate. Slow infusion of norepinephrine often produced a small pressure rise whereas rapid infusion always produced a large pressure fall. Epinephrine sometimes produced similar changes but more often the pressure fell progressively as a function of the rate of infusion. The pressure rise frequently was unassociated with a change in heart rate or the proportion of a minute spent in systole. Both parameters, as well as oxygen consumption, increased with high rates of infusion. These findings suggest that the direct effect of these agents on coronary vessels is active constriction, whereas the indirect effect is active dilatation. In low concentrations the direct effect may predominate, resulting in a resistance increase, whereas in high concentrations the indirect effect always predominates, resulting in a decrease of resistance.

Note:
With the Assistance of Philip W. Thomas and Joseph S. Robertson

Submitted on February 23, 1961







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 1961 by the American Physiological Society.