Why does vasodilation in periphery lead to reduction in blood pressure?

AI Thread Summary
Vasodilation in peripheral blood vessels leads to a reduction in blood pressure by increasing the capacity for blood flow, which decreases vascular resistance. When peripheral vessels dilate, there is more room for blood, resulting in lower pressure in the arms and legs where blood pressure is measured. This phenomenon can be likened to expanding a fluid-filled container, where less pressure is exerted against the walls. The discussion also highlights that while pressure can be compared to voltage in circuits, the relationship is not directly analogous due to differences in how blood flow and resistance operate in the vascular system. Overall, understanding these dynamics is crucial for grasping how peripheral vasodilation affects blood pressure.
sameeralord
Messages
659
Reaction score
3
Hello everyone,

Ok generally what do they mean when they say vasodilation in periphery lead to reduction in blood pressure? Do I have to think of this as expanding the size of a fluid filled container so less fluid splashes againts the walls reducing pressure. Or do I have to think of this like a circuit where decreasing the resistane of a resistor results in decreased pressure just upstream of that resistor. Thank you :smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Conventional blood pressure, which has become a standard vital measurement is measured around a person's arm, where vasodilatation is relevant (large arteries, smaller arterioles and large veins.)

If the arm vessels dilate, the pressure there will decrease.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasodilation
 
Last edited:
Dr Lots-o'watts said:
Conventional blood pressure, which has become a standard vital measurement is measured around a person's arm, where vasodilatation or contraction is negligible.

If there is more room for blood in the periphery where vasodilatation occurs (the capillaries in fingers, face, organs etc), there is a little less blood in the arms (and legs and main arteries), so the measured pressure there is reduced.

Thanks a lot for the answer :smile: but here is where I'm getting confused with circuits. In a circuit if I have 2 parallel circuits, both would get the same voltage but different current depending on the resistance. So if I directly think of voltage as pressure, shouldn't the pressure be same in legs and fingers. Is this a case where the pressure and voltage analogy doesn't work. If so I understand. Thank you :smile:
 
After review, I had to make an important correction in my first post. My physiology is further than I thought.
 
sameeralord said:
Hello everyone,

Ok generally what do they mean when they say vasodilation in periphery lead to reduction in blood pressure? Do I have to think of this as expanding the size of a fluid filled container so less fluid splashes againts the walls reducing pressure. Or do I have to think of this like a circuit where decreasing the resistane of a resistor results in decreased pressure just upstream of that resistor. Thank you :smile:

There's a simplified model of blood pressure, involving the ejection volume from the heart, systemic vascular resistance, and central venous pressure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_pressure

The major driver of vascular pressure are the arterioles and capillaries. Increasing the peripheral blood flow decreases the vascular resistance, leading to a decrease in arterial pressure.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top