This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Caspary, L. A. Articles by Alexander, K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Caspary, L. A. Articles by Alexander, K. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Orthostatic Vasoconstrictor Response in Patients with Occlusive Arterial Disease Assessed by Laser Doppler Flux and Transcutaneous Oximetry

Department of Angiology, Medical School, Hannover, Germany

Andreas Creutzig

Department of Angiology, Medical School, Hannover, Germany

Klaus Alexander

Department of Angiology, Medical School, Hannover, Germany

Posturally induced microvascular constriction normally causes a decrease of transcutaneous oxygen pressure (tCPO₂) and laser Doppler flux (LDF) measured on the forefoot at 37°C. The authors used both methods to assess the vasoconstrictor response (VCR) in 31 patients with various degrees of peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD) and analyzed factors that could have influenced the response.

Disturbed VCR was indicated by a signal increase following leg dependency, which occurred significantly more often in tCPO₂ than in LDF measurements (69% vs 32%, P < 0.001). Correspondingly the median sitting/supine ratio was 2.4 for tcPO ₂ and 0.7 for LDF (P < 0.0001). Age and clinical stage had no influence on the VCR. With ankle artery pressures below 50 mmHg an increase of LDF was more probable. TcPO₂ predominantly increased with ankle artery pressures up to 100 mmHg, though the sitting/supine ratio of tcPO₂ was correlated with ankle artery pressure. In nondiabetics the response of tcPO₂ but not of LDF was influenced by the values at rest.

Differences between the two methods may be explained in part by their different sample volumes. The authors assume that tcPO₂ is predominantly monitoring a local myogenic response while LDF is reflecting venoarteriolar response.

Angiology, Vol. 47, No. 2, 165-173 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/000331979604700208


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?