Sevda C. Aslan, Bonnie E. Legg Ditterline, Michael C. Park, Claudia A. Angeli, Enrico Rejc, Yangsheng Chen, Alexander V. Ovechkin, Andrei Krassioukov, Susan J. Harkema
Abstract
Disruption of motor and autonomic pathways induced by spinal cord injury (SCI) often leads to persistent low arterial blood pressure and orthostatic intolerance. Spinal cord epidural stimulation (scES) has been shown to enable independent standing and voluntary movement in individuals with clinically motor complete SCI. In this study, we addressed whether scES configured to activate motor lumbosacral networks can also modulate arterial blood pressure by assessing continuous, beat-by-beat blood pressure and lower extremity electromyography during supine and standing in seven individuals with C5-T4 SCI. In three research participants with arterial hypotension, orthostatic intolerance, and low levels of circulating catecholamines (group 1), scES applied while supine and standing resulted in increased arterial blood pressure. In four research participants without evidence of arterial hypotension or orthostatic intolerance and normative circulating catecholamines (group 2), scES did not induce significant increases in arterial blood pressure. During scES, there were no significant differences in electromyographic (EMG) activity between group 1 and group 2. In group 1, during standing assisted by scES, blood pressure was maintained at 119/72 ± 7/14 mmHg (mean ± SD) compared with 70/45 ± 5/7 mmHg without scES. In group 2 there were no arterial blood pressure changes during standing with or without scES. These findings demonstrate that scES configured to facilitate motor function can acutely increase arterial blood pressure in individuals with SCI-induced cardiovascular deficits.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
2
2%
Other
9
9%
Unknown
29
31%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 July 2018.
All research outputs
#4,715,487
of 23,342,232 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#2,364
of 14,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,274
of 329,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#105
of 486 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,232 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,074 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,933 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 486 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
