A REVIEW of the physiologic disturbances encountered in nonpulsatile perfusion suggests a far greater importance to pulsatile blood flow than has heretofore been accorded. Although there is some evidence that blood flow through organs may be affected by nonpulsatile perfusion, it is now generally accepted that it is not. However, considerable evidence is available favoring the view that nonpulsatile perfusion may impair organ function in a number of ways.1
That kidney function might be affected by the arterial pulse is suggested by several studies. Hamel2 and Hooker,3 studying the isolated kidney, found that a reduction in pulse pressure resulted in a drop in urine output. Gasell,4 studying the intact kidney, confirmed this. Judson and Rausch5 demonstrated a direct correlation between pulse pressure and urine output in humans undergoing aortic surgery. Senning et al6 showed that nonpulsatile perfusion resulted in a depression in renal function
Many M, Soroff HS, Birtwell WC, Wise HM, Deterling RA. The Physiologic Role of Pulsatile and Nonpulsatile Blood Flow: III. Effects of Unilateral Renal Artery Depulsation. Arch Surg. 1968;97(6):917–923. doi:10.1001/archsurg.1968.01340060095010
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: