The effect of perfusion pressure on uteroplacental blood flow was determined in pregnant rabbits utilizing the radioactive microsphere method. Control mean arterial pressure, 93 mm Hg +/- 2.6 SEM, was raised by carotid ligation to 109 +/- 4.1 mm Hg and then reduced with antihypertensive drugs to 74 +/- 1.3 mm Hg. Over this range of pressure there was no significant change in cardiac output, 605 +/- 36, 523 +/- 37, and 540 +/- 39 ml/min; or uteroplacental blood flow, 30 +/- 3.2, 27 +/- 5.2, and 29 +/- 4.5 ml/min, respectively. When prostaglandin synthesis was inhibited with either indomethacin or meclofenamate (2 mg/kg), uterine vascular resistance was higher but maintenance of uteroplacental flow occurred over a perfusion pressure of 89 +/- 6.7-115 +/- 9.3 mm Hg. With more severe hypotension induced with trimethaphan, control arterial pressure fell from 92 +/- 2.4 to 39 +/- 0.9 mm Hg, cardiac output fell from 514 +/- 17 to 407 +/- 22 ml/min (P less than 0.025) and uteroplacental blood flow fell from 6.1 +/- 0.9 to 2.5 +/- 0.9% of cardiac output (P less than 0.05), which represented an absolute fall from 32.4 +/- 5 to 10.6 +/- 3 ml/min (P less than 0.025). There was no significant change in renal blood flow expressed as percentage of cardiac output, 14.9 +/- 2 and 13 +/- 1.5%, or in absolute flow, 75 +/- 7.7 and 54 +/- 7 ml/min with trimethaphan-induced hypotension. These studies indicate that uteroplacental blood flow is maintained relatively constant over a range of perfusion pressure of 60-140 mm Hg in both normal and prostaglandin-inhibited pregnant rabbits. However, with reduction in pressure to 36-42 mm Hg, uteroplacental blood flow falls, expressed as a percentage of cardiac output and in absolute flow.
R C Venuto, J W Cox, J H Stein, T F Ferris
Usage data is cumulative from December 2023 through December 2024.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 126 | 0 |
89 | 19 | |
Scanned page | 277 | 2 |
Citation downloads | 48 | 0 |
Totals | 540 | 21 |
Total Views | 561 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.