Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Front Cardiovasc Med ; 10: 1288080, 2023.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38075977

RESUMO

Background: There is a strong association between hypertension and cerebrovascular diseases, but most of the mechanistic bases to justify this correlation remains misunderstood. Objective: To evaluate intracranial pressure waveform in long-term essential hypertensive patients with a non-invasive device, brain4care (b4c). Methods: Cross-sectional study in patients with hypertension. Office blood pressure was measured with an automatic oscillometric device. Intracranial pressure evaluation was acquired through a strain sensor that could detect and monitor nanometric skull bone displacements for each cardiac cycle. Under normal physiological conditions, P1 is greater than P2, and the normal P2/P1 ratio is <1. Time to peak (TTP) is the measurement in seconds of the beginning of waveform inscription until P1 and normal values are <0.20 s. The cut-off points ≥1.2 and ≥0.25 s were used to define intracranial hypertension (ICHT). Results: 391 consecutive patients were evaluated (75% female, mean age 64.3 ± 12.0 years). Mean value of P2/P1 ratio was 1.18 ± 0.25 and TTP 0.18 ± 0.63 s The obtained P2/P1 ratios were divided in three categories according to results of previous studies of normalcy (<1.0), intracranial compliance disturbance (1.0-1.19) and ICHT (≥1.2). Normal intracranial pressure was observed in 21.7% of patients, intracranial compliance disturbance in 32.7% and intracranial hypertension in 45.6%. Females showed a higher prevalence of ICHT (50.3%). Conclusion: The prevalence of 45.6% intra-cranial hypertension in patients with long-term hypertension, particularly in women, and in those over 65 years old, emphasizes the importance of evaluate intracranial pressure behaviour in these patients and raise a question concerning the real ability of cerebral autoregulation and vascular barriers to protect the brain.

2.
Neurorehabil Neural Repair ; 33(8): 643-655, 2019 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31286828

RESUMO

Background. Although recent evidence has shown a new role of fluoxetine in motor rehabilitation, results are mixed. We conducted a randomized clinical trial to evaluate whether combining repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) with fluoxetine increases upper limb motor function in stroke. Methods. Twenty-seven hemiparetic patients within 2 years of ischemic stroke were randomized into 3 groups: Combined (active rTMS + fluoxetine), Fluoxetine (sham rTMS + fluoxetine), or Placebo (sham rTMS + placebo fluoxetine). Participants received 18 sessions of 1-Hz rTMS in the unaffected primary motor cortex and 90 days of fluoxetine (20 mg/d). Motor function was assessed using Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function (JTHF) and Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) scales. Corticospinal excitability was assessed with TMS. Results. After adjusting for time since stroke, there was significantly greater improvement in JTHF in the combined rTMS + fluoxetine group (mean improvement: -214.33 seconds) than in the placebo (-177.98 seconds, P = 0.005) and fluoxetine (-50.16 seconds, P < 0.001) groups. The fluoxetine group had less improvement than placebo on both scales (respectively, JTHF: -50.16 vs -117.98 seconds, P = 0.038; and FMA: 6.72 vs 15.55 points, P = 0.039), suggesting that fluoxetine possibly had detrimental effects. The unaffected hemisphere showed decreased intracortical inhibition in the combined and fluoxetine groups, and increased intracortical facilitation in the fluoxetine group. This facilitation was negatively correlated with motor function improvement (FMA, r2 = -0.398, P = 0.0395). Conclusion. Combined fluoxetine and rTMS treatment leads to better motor function in stroke than fluoxetine alone and placebo. Moreover, fluoxetine leads to smaller improvements than placebo, and fluoxetine's effects on intracortical facilitation suggest a potential diffuse mechanism that may hinder beneficial plasticity on motor recovery.


Assuntos
Fluoxetina/uso terapêutico , Atividade Motora , Inibidores Seletivos de Recaptação de Serotonina/uso terapêutico , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/terapia , Estimulação Magnética Transcraniana , Terapia Combinada , Método Duplo-Cego , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Atividade Motora/efeitos dos fármacos , Atividade Motora/fisiologia , Paresia/etiologia , Paresia/fisiopatologia , Paresia/terapia , Tratos Piramidais/efeitos dos fármacos , Tratos Piramidais/fisiopatologia , Recuperação de Função Fisiológica , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/complicações , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/fisiopatologia , Estimulação Magnética Transcraniana/métodos , Resultado do Tratamento , Extremidade Superior
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...