Talk:Hyperaemia

Hyperemia
Hyperemia is the ACTIVE arteriolar engorgement of the vascular beds. Passive as you are calling it, should really be called Congestion - which is the passive venous engorgement of the vascular bed.

Merger
Functional and Reactive are tiny little articles. They all need to be merged into the general term article, as it is too small as it is as well. Chaldor (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree.--Icehcky8 (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Physiologically speaking, Functional, Reactive, and Active hyperemia are all mechanisms that the body uses to increase blood flow to a given area due to increased "metabolic" needs. They should be included in the the same heading because they are all different ways to describe the same basic principle. Leaving them separate is ill-minded and general poor taste. I agree that the posted articles are too brief and do not supply a lot of information.====

Agree. Perhaps unified under the common nomenclature of metabolic hyperaemia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.6.40 (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree as well. An analogy would be renal failure as a condition but failing to mention the 3 types of renal failure nad how and why they occur. The inclusion or Reactive, Functional, and Active allows one to better understand how the process works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.67.64.21 (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Reactive and active hyperemia come under 'one umbrella', as it were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.197.19 (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Reactive hyperemia has been inadequately characterized thus far under this heading. That does not mean that this category is not worth a specific category. Allow me this thought: reactive hyperemia is a measure of endothelial dysfunction. This is already well demostrated. If you need, I will cite articles. Therefore, for those of us in the areas of medicine where this dysregulation may be critical, I submit that it would be a good idea to allow this separate category to continue to exist. In support of that, I will do my best to synthesize my thoughts regarding this subtopic and humbly submit some thoughts in the next 30 days. Please do not shut down this particular topic. It may just be worth something to someone...who hasn't thought about it until today, like me. Thank you. Emily Clionsky, MD 413-306-6060 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.246.8 (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I believe it should be merged too.Unless it is expanded. ArminHP (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Since this has been going on for a while and no one was acting on the evident consensus, I have merged the articles. — Guillaume Pelletier ~ 17:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Common Nutrients?
"Since most of the common nutrients in the body are converted to carbon dioxide when they are metabolized..." That may not be gibberish, but it's "close enough for government work" and needs to be addressed. Lewis Goudy (talk) 10:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)