Centre for Integrated Systems Biology and Medicine, Schools of 1 Biomedical Sciences and 2 Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK
* Corresponding author. E-mail: sheila.gardiner{at}nottingham.ac.uk
Accepted for publication April 29, 2004.
![]() |
Abstract |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Methods. Conscious, male SpragueDawley rats were infused with saline (0.4 ml h1) or LPS (150 µg kg1 h1). Renal, mesenteric, and hindquarter haemodynamic responses to 3 min infusions of AVP (0.25, 0.625, and 1.25 ng kg1 min1) or NE (75, 250, and 750 ng kg1 min1) were assessed 2, 6, and 24 h after the onset of LPS or saline.
Results. Two and six hours after the onset of LPS, all haemodynamic effects of NE were markedly reduced, but by 24 h, there was some recovery in the vasoconstrictor actions of NE although the pressor and bradycardic effects were still depressed. Two hours after the onset of LPS, the cardiovascular effects of AVP were depressed but there was some recovery in vascular responsiveness at 6 h. By 24 h, only the mesenteric vasoconstrictor effect of AVP was consistently reduced.
Conclusions. During low dose LPS infusion, there are differential changes in haemodynamic responsiveness to AVP and NE, which show different temporal and regional profiles of recovery with time. Furthermore, reduced pressor responsiveness to NE is not necessarily accompanied by a reduced capacity of vessels for vasoconstriction.
Keywords: blood, regional haemodynamics ; complications, endotoxaemia ; model, rat ; sympathetic nervous system, norepinephrine ; sympathetic nervous system, ornithine-8-vasopressin
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
A recent abstract10 indicated differential changes in the pressor responsiveness to NE and AVP in anaesthetized, endotoxic rats, and a more recent paper11 has shown differential effects of NE and AVP on organ perfusion in anaesthetized dogs with septic shock, but we are unaware of any published study in which comparative assessments of the regional haemodynamic effects of AVP and NE have been carried out in conscious animals in the normal state, and in the endotoxic condition, across a 24 h time-period. This experimental approach is important as it is clear there are temporally related changes in haemodynamic status during developing endotoxaemia and there may be dissociation between the pressor and regional vasoconstrictor effects of agonists in sepsis.12 13
Therefore, the aim of the present work was to compare changes in cardiovascular responsiveness to NE and AVP in conscious, chronically instrumented rats utilizing a model of endotoxaemia, which involves infusion of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) for 24 h.1214 Some of these results have been presented to the British Pharmacological Society.15
![]() |
Materials and methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Four groups of rats were studied; two groups were infused with sterile saline (0.4 ml h1) for 25 h, and two groups received a continuous infusion of LPS (150 µg kg1 h1) for 25 h. One of the saline-infused groups was challenged with NE and the other with AVP, and likewise for the LPS-infused groups. Studies in vitro have shown that the mode of agonist administration can determine whether or not vascular hyporeactivity is detected in tissues taken from endotoxic animals, for example hyporesponsiveness to methoxamine is seen with infusions, but not with bolus doses.17 Thus, in contrast to an earlier study in which we compared bolus doses of AII and AVP,13 here we chose to administer NE and AVP as infusions. As NE and AVP are both fast-acting, steady-state was achieved with 3 min infusions. NE was given at three incremental doses (75, 250, and 750 ng kg1 min1), each infused at a rate of 0.15 ml min1 for 3 min, separated by at least 10 min to allow variables to return to baseline levels. A similar protocol was followed with AVP (0.25, 0.625, and 1.25 ng kg1 min1). The infusions of NE or AVP were begun at 2, 6, and 24 h after the onset of infusion of saline or LPS. Cardiovascular variables were monitored continuously for the first 7 h of the experiment and again between 24 and 25 h, to allow changes during saline or LPS infusion and the responses to NE or AVP to be quantified. Data were digitized using a custom-designed haemodynamics data acquisition system (HDAS; built by the Bioinstrumentation Laboratories at the University of Maastricht) and stored to disk to allow offline analysis.
For each animal in each experiment, values for heart rate, mean arterial arterial pressure, and renal, mesenteric, and hindquarters Doppler shift were averaged electronically over selected time periods. Doppler shift was divided by mean arterial pressure to give an index of vascular conductance, and per cent changes in the latter were analysed as indices of vasodilatation (i.e. increase in vascular conductance) and vasoconstriction (i.e. decrease in vascular conductance).1214
Data analysis
Within-group analysis was by Friedman's test,18 to determine changes relative to original baseline (i.e. during infusion of saline or LPS). Responses to NE or AVP were assessed from the dose-related integrated responses (areas under or over curves) during the 3 min infusion. Because resting cardiovascular variables changed during LPS infusion (see Results) integrated responses were expressed as both absolute and as per cent changes (i.e. % of the pre-dose value). Comparison between groups (saline/LPS, NE/AVP) was by KruskalWallis test; P<0.05 was taken as significant.
Drugs
LPS (Escherichia coli serotype 0127: B8) (Sigma, UK), NE bitartrate (Sigma, UK) and AVP (Bachem, UK) were dissolved in sterile, isotonic saline.
Anaesthetic and reversing agents were as follows: fentanyl citrate (Janssen-Cilag, UK), medetomidine hydrochloride ((Domitor) Pfizer, UK), atipamezole hydrochloride ((Antisedan) Pfizer, UK), nalbuphine hydrochloride ((Nubain) Bristol-Myers Squibb, UK).
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
|
|
|
|
Responses to AVP
Saline-infused rats. Two, six, and twenty-four hours after the onset of saline infusion, AVP caused dose-dependent pressor and bradycardic effects accompanied by reductions in mesenteric, renal, and hindquarters vascular conductances, in that rank order (Fig. 3). AVP induced reductions in flow in all three vascular beds, but the effect was most marked in the mesenteric bed (Table 4). Although AVP increased systolic arterial pressure more than diastolic arterial pressure, the difference was less than that seen with NE (Table 2).
|
|
Whilst most of the effects of AVP showed some recovery by 6 h after the onset of LPS infusion, there was still a slight reduction in its pressor action (Fig. 3). However, by 24 h after the onset of LPS infusion, the pressor and bradycardic effects of AVP were not consistently reduced, and renal and hindquarters vasoconstrictor effects were enhanced in absolute terms, presumably as a result of the underlying vasodilatation (Fig. 3). Only the mesenteric vasoconstrictor actions of AVP were consistently reduced 24 h after the onset of LPS infusion (i.e. in absolute and per cent terms). There was no recovery in the ability of AVP to increase pulse pressure (Table 2).
Comparison of NE and AVP effects
Saline-infused rats. At doses of NE and AVP, which caused comparable pressor effects (250 and 1.25 ng kg1 min1, respectively), NE caused similar bradycardic, renal, and hindquarters vasoconstrictor effects to AVP, but the latter had a more marked mesenteric vasoconstrictor action (Figs 2 and 3; Tables 3 and 4).
LPS-infused rats. Figure 4 shows integrated responses to NE (250 ng kg1 min1) and AVP (1.25 ng kg1 min1) in LPS-infused rats expressed as per cent of the corresponding responses in saline-infused rats at the different time points.
|
By 6 h into the LPS infusion, there was some recovery of the vasoconstrictor effects of NE (Fig. 2), but this was less than seen with AVP (Figs 3 and 4), and this difference was particularly apparent from the much greater ability of the latter to cause reductions in renal and, especially, mesenteric flow (Tables 3 and 4). Twenty-four hours after the onset of LPS infusion, there was recovery in the ability of NE to cause regional vasoconstriction, together with reductions in renal and mesenteric flows, although its pressor and bradycardic actions remained generally depressed, in contrast to those of AVP (Figs 24).
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The present findings of diminished vasoconstrictor effects of NE in LPS-infused rats are broadly consistent with an earlier study in which we reported diminished vascular responsiveness to the -adrenoceptor agonist, methoxamine, in this endotoxaemic model.12 The mechanisms underlying the early (at 2 h) loss of vasoconstrictor responsiveness to NE cannot be determined from this study, although others have suggested a variety of possible contributing factors.1921 Perhaps more interesting, however, is the recovery of the vasoconstrictor effects of NE that we observed during continued LPS infusion. We have shown previously that iNOS expression is maximal 6 h after the onset of LPS infusion,14 so if overproduction of NO under the influence of the inducible enzyme was responsible for the effects seen, we would have expected that NE responses would be maximally reduced at 6 h. But the vascular hyporeactivity to NE was most apparent at 2 h, indicating that factors other than NO produced by iNOS were more important in this regard. Two hours after the start of LPS infusion, the animals had undergone a period of transient hypotension accompanied by vasodilatation, and arterial pressure had recovered to near normal levels. The mediators responsible for the recovery in arterial pressure likely include angiotensin and/or endothelin and/or AVP,22 but sympathoadrenal activation may also contribute,23 and the latter would be expected to diminish the effects of exogenous NE. However, the sustained tachycardia seen throughout the 24 h LPS infusion is indicative of persistent sympathoadrenal activation. Thus, if the early loss of vascular responsiveness to exogenous NE was associated with receptor down-regulation and/or receptor occupancy,19 21 our findings of a recovery in NE responsiveness in the face of signs of persistent sympathoadrenal activation might indicate that
-adrenoceptors up-regulate to counteract the early loss of effect. The residual reduction in pressor response to NE seen 2425 h after the start of the LPS infusion was not associated with a reduced vascular response, but the inferred cardiac component (i.e. increase in pulse pressure) was still diminished, perhaps indicating that cardiac ß-adrenoceptors are less able to adapt to persistent sympathetic activation than are vascular
-adrenoceptors.24
The persistent lack of bradycardic response to NE in LPS-infused rats is intriguing. It is likely that the heart rate response to NE was a combination of a positive chronotropic effect of NE and reflex vagal activation, with the latter being the prevailing effect in normal animals. The loss of bradycardic response to NE in the LPS-infused rats, against the background of an underlying tachycardia, and at a time when there was some pressor effect of the catecholamine (24 h) most likely indicates a failure in the baroreflex response, but whether this was at the afferent, central, or efferent limb of the process is unknown. Notably, however, sustained loss of bradycardia was not seen when AVP was used to increase arterial pressure (see below).
The extent and pattern of changes in responses to AVP during LPS infusion differed from those to NE, possibly supporting the suggestion that NE responses were influenced by underlying sympathoadrenal activation. Thus, although we observed some loss of responsiveness to AVP 2 h after the onset of LPS infusion, this effect occurred under conditions in which the ability of AVP to reduce mesenteric flow was reasonably well maintained, whereas the effect of NE on mesenteric flow was lost. Moreover, we observed a recovery of responses to AVP during LPS infusion at a time when those to NE remained depressed (i.e. at 6 h). This is consistent with AVP being more effective than NE in patients with hypotension as a result of vasodilatation (see Introduction). However, the marked renal and mesenteric vasoconstrictor effects of AVP during LPS infusion indicate that this agent may have the potential to cause ischaemia.25 Indeed, in a recent study in endotoxaemic pigs,26 it was shown that AVP caused a reduction in cardiac output and gut blood flow sufficient to produce jejunal luminal lactate release and signs of visceral dysoxia. But, in the present study, although AVP was able to cause marked reductions in the elevated renal and mesenteric flows seen, particularly after 6 h of LPS infusion, the effect was largely a result of inhibition of the LPS-induced hyperaemia. Hence, the ability of AVP to suppress pathological hyperaemia could result in redistribution of blood to the brain and heart. A beneficial effect of terlipressin has been reported recently in endotoxaemic rats undergoing concurrent volume expansion.27 As our model of endotoxaemia produces a hyperdynamic circulation, that is increased cardiac output and total peripheral vascular conductance,14 it may be that deleterious effects of AVP are characteristic of the hypodynamic state.28 29
Cytokine-mediated down-regulation of vasopressin V1A receptors has been reported,30 which could explain the early, transient, loss of AVP-induced vasoconstrictor responsiveness observed here, as cytokine levels are maximally elevated 12 h after the onset of LPS infusion in our model, and then wane.31 However, down-regulation of -adrenoceptors has also been attributed to a cytokine-mediated event,19 but here we found different patterns of recovery in response to NE and AVP. Thus, it is unlikely that a common underlying mechanism was responsible for the changes seen. It is notable that we observed no signs of the increased sensitivity to the pressor actions of AVP reported by others,7 10 indicating that such a phenomenon may depend on the clinical condition or experimental model used. As the pressor response to AVP recovered during LPS infusion, so did the accompanying bradycardia, which contrasts with the changes seen in response to NE. Although there is evidence for unique interactions between AVP and the baroreflex control of heart rate, there are several studies failing to show such effects.32 33
In conclusion, we have identified some differences in temporal and regional changes in the haemodynamic effects of NE and AVP in a conscious rat model of sepsis in which the circulation is in a hyperdynamic state. Although the exact mechanisms are not clear at this stage, the important findings in clinical terms are that the reduced pressor response to NE in sepsis is not necessarily accompanied by reduced capacity of vessels to constrict, and that responsiveness to AVP is less affected than that to NE. The logical extension of this work is to investigate the effects of co-administration of AVP and NE to determine if the effects of the latter are improved by the former, and to elucidate the underlying mechanisms.
![]() |
Acknowledgments |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
2 Dünser MW, Wenzel V, Mayr AJ, Hasibeder WR. Management of vasodilatory shock. Defining a role of arginine vasopressin. Drugs 2003; 63: 23756[ISI][Medline]
3 Sun Q, Dimopoulos G, Nguyen DN, et al. Low-dose vasopressin in the treatment of septic shock in sheep. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2003; 168: 4816
4 Holmes CL, Patel BM, Russell JA, Walley KR. Physiology of vasopressin relevant to management of septic shock. Chest 2001; 120: 9891002
5 Landry DW, Levin HR, Gallant EM, et al. Vasopressin deficiency contributes to the vasodilatation of septic shock. Circulation 1997; 95: 11225
6 Sharshar T, Blanchard A, Paillard M, Raphael JC, Gajdos P, Annane D. Circulating vasopressin levels in septic shock. Crit Care Med 2003; 31: 17528[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
7 Landry DW, Levin HR, Gallant EM, et al. Vasopressin pressor hypersensitivity in vasodilatory septic shock. Crit Care Med 1997; 25: 127982[ISI][Medline]
8 Dünser MW, Mayr AJ, Ulmer H, et al. Arginine vasopressin in advanced vasodilatory shock. A prospective, randomised, controlled study. Circulation 2003; 107: 23139
9 O'Brien A, Clapp L, Singer M. Terlipressin for norepinephrine-resistant septic shock. Lancet 2002; 359: 120910[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
10 O'Brien AJ, Stidwill R, Clapp LH, Singer M. In vivo and in vitro differences in responses to catecholamines and vasopressin in rat models of LPS. Intensive Care Med 2002; 28 (Suppl.): S96
11 Guzman JA, Rosado AE, Kruse JA. Vasopressin vs norepinephrine in endotoxic shock: systemic, renal, and splanchnic hemodynamic and oxygen transport effects. J Appl Physiol 2003; 95: 8039
12 Waller J, Gardiner SM, Bennett T. Regional haemodynamic responses to acetylcholine, methoxamine, salbutamol and bradykinin during lipopolysaccharide infusion in conscious rats. Br J Pharmacol 1994; 112: 105764[Abstract]
13 Tarpey SB, Bennett T, Randall MD, Gardiner SM. Differential effects of endotoxaemia on pressor and vasoconstrictor actions of angiotensin II and arginine vasopressin in conscious rats. Br J Pharmacol 1998; 123: 136774[Abstract]
14 Gardiner SM, Kemp PA, March JE, Bennett T. Cardiac and regional haemodynamics, inducible nitric oxide synthase (NOS) activity, and the effects of NOS inhibitors in conscious, endotoxaemic rats. Br J Pharmacol 1995; 116: 200516[Abstract]
15 March JE, Kemp PA, Mahajan R, Bennett T. Haemodynamic effects of noradrenaline (NA) infusion in conscious rats treated with lipopolysaccharide (LPS). Proceedings of the British Pharmacological Society at http://www.pa2online.org/Vol1Issue3abst024P.html
16 Blair R, Fishman B, Amit Z, Weeks JR. A simple double-channel swivel for infusions of fluids into unrestrained animals. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1980; 12: 4636[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
17 Farmer MR, Roberts RE, Gardiner SM, Ralevic V. Effects of in vivo lipopolysaccharide infusion on vasoconstrictor function of rat isolated mesentery, kidney, and aorta. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2003; 306: 53845
18 Theodorsson-Norheim E. Friedman and Quade tests. BASIC computer program to perform non-parametric two-way analysis of variance and multiple comparisons on ranks of several related samples. Comput Biol Med 1987; 17: 8599[ISI][Medline]
19 Bucher M, Kees F, Taeger K, Kurtz A. Cytokines down-regulate 1-adrenergic receptor expression during endotoxemia. Crit Care Med 2003; 31: 56671[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
20 Takakura K, Taniguchi T, Muramatsu I, Takeuchi K, Fukuda S. Modification of alpha 1-adrenoceptors by peroxynitrite as a possible mechanism of systemic hypotension in sepsis. Crit Care Med 2002; 30: 8949[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
21 Pleiner J, Heere-Ress E, Langenberger H, et al. Adrenoceptor hyporeactivity is responsible for Escherichia coli endotoxin-induced acute vascular dysfunction in humans. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2002; 22: 95100
22 Gardiner SM, Kemp PA, March JE, Bennett T. Temporal differences between the involvement of angiotensin II and endothelin in the cardiovascular responses to endotoxaemia in conscious rats. Br J Pharmacol 1996; 119: 161927[Abstract]
23 Schaller MD, Waeber B, Nussberger J, Brunner HR. Angiotensin II, vasopressin and sympathetic activity in conscious rats with endotoxemia. Am J Physiol 1985; 249: H108692[Medline]
24 El-Armouche A, Zolk O, Rau T, Eschenhagen T. Inhibitory G-proteins and their role in desensitization of the adenylyl cyclase pathway in heart failure. Cardiovasc Res 2003; 60: 47887[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
25 Dünser MW, Mayr AJ, Ulmer H, et al. The effects of vasopressin on systemic hemodynamics in catecholamine-resistant septic and postcardiotomy shock: a retrospective analysis. Anesth Analg 2001; 93: 713
26 Martikainen TJ, Tenhunen JJ, Uusaro A, Ruokonen E. The effects of vasopressin on systemic and splanchnic hemodynamics and metabolism in endotoxin shock. Anesth Analg 2003; 97: 175663
27 Asfar P, Pierrot M, Veal N, et al. Low-dose terlipressin improves systemic and splanchnic hemodynamics in fluid-challenged endotoxic rats. Crit Care Med 2003; 31: 21520[ISI][Medline]
28 Morelli A, Rocco M, Conti G, et al. Effects of terlipressin on systemic and regional haemodynamics in catecholamine-treated hyperkinetic septic shock. Intensive Care Med 2004; 30: 597604[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
29 Klinzing S, Simon M, Reinhart K, Bredle DL, Meier-Hellmann A. High-dose vasopressin is not superior to norepinephrine in septic shock. Crit Care Med 2003; 31: 264650[ISI][Medline]
30 Bucher M, Hobbhahn J, Taeger K, Kurtz A. Cytokine-mediated downregulation of vasopressin V1A receptors during acute endotoxemia in rats. Am J Physiol 2001; 282: R97984[ISI]
31 Waller J, Gardiner SM, Jose J, Bennett T. Lack of effect of TNF-antibodies on the cardiovascular sequelae of lipopolysaccharide infusion in conscious rats. Br J Pharmacol 1995; 116: 248795[Abstract]
32 Bennett T, Gardiner SM. Influence of exogenous vasopressin on baroreflex mechanisms. Clin Sci 1986; 70: 30715[ISI][Medline]
33 Gardiner SM, Bennett T. Endogenous vasopressin and baroreflex mechanisms. Brain Res Rev 1986; 11: 31734[ISI]
|