Centre for Sport and Exercise Science, Sheffield Hallam University, A125 Collegiate Hall, Sheffield, S10 2BP, UK.
Microvasc Res. 2011 Nov;82(3):326-32. doi: 10.1016/j.mvr.2011.07.007. Epub 2011 Jul 22.
To compare the inter-day reproducibility of post-occlusive reactive hyperaemia (PORH) and sympathetic vasomotor reflexes assessed by single-point laser Doppler flowmetry (SP-LDF), integrating-probe LDF (IP-LDF) and laser speckle contrast imaging (LSCI), and the spatial variability of PORH assessed by IP-LDF and LSCI. We also evaluated the relationship between IP-LDF and LSCI perfusion values across a broad range of skin blood flows.
Eighteen healthy adults (50% male, age 27 ± 4 years) participated in this study. Using SP-LDF, IP-LDF and LSCI, indices of skin blood flow were measured on the forearm during PORH (1-, 5- and 10-min occlusions) and on the finger pad during inspiratory gasp and cold pressor tests. These tests were repeated 3-7 days later. Data were converted to cutaneous vascular conductance (CVC; laser Doppler flow/mean arterial pressure) and expressed as absolute and relative changes from pre-stimulus CVC (ΔCVC(ABS) and ΔCVC(REL), respectively), as well as normalised to peak CVC for the PORH tests. Reproducibility was expressed as within-subjects coefficients of variation (CV, in %) and intraclass correlation coefficients.
The reproducibility of PORH on the forearm was poorer when assessed with SP-LDF and IP-LDF compared to LSCI (e.g., CV for 5-min PORH ΔCVC(ABS)=35%, 27% and 19%, respectively), with no superior method of data expression. In contrast, the reproducibility of the inspiratory gasp and cold pressor test responses on the finger pad were better with SP-LDF and IP-LDF compared to LSCI (e.g., CV for inspiratory gasp ΔCVC(REL)=13%, 7% and 19%, respectively). The spatial variability of PORH responses was poorer with IP-LDF compared to LSCI (e.g., CV ranging 11-35% versus 3-16%, respectively). The association between simultaneous LSCI and IP-LDF perfusion values was non-linear.
The reproducibility of cutaneous PORH was better when assessed with LSCI compared to SP-LDF and IP-LDF; probably due to measuring larger skin areas (lower inter-site variability). However, when measuring sympathetic vasomotor reflexes on the finger pad, reproducibility was better with SP-LDF and IP-LDF, perhaps due to the high sensitivity of LSCI to changes in skin blood flow at low levels.
比较单点激光多普勒流量仪(SP-LDF)、集成探头激光多普勒流量仪(IP-LDF)和激光散斑对比成像仪(LSCI)评估的后阻塞性充血反应(PORH)和交感血管反射的日内可重复性,以及 IP-LDF 和 LSCI 评估的 PORH 的空间变异性。我们还评估了 IP-LDF 和 LSCI 灌注值在广泛的皮肤血流范围内的关系。
18 名健康成年人(50%为男性,年龄 27±4 岁)参与了这项研究。使用 SP-LDF、IP-LDF 和 LSCI,在 PORH(1、5 和 10 分钟闭塞)期间测量前臂的皮肤血流指数,在吸气喘息和冷加压试验期间测量指垫的皮肤血流指数。这些测试在 3-7 天后重复进行。数据转换为皮肤血管传导率(激光多普勒流量/平均动脉压),并表示为与刺激前血管传导率的绝对和相对变化(分别为ΔCVC(ABS)和ΔCVC(REL)),以及 PORH 测试的峰值血管传导率归一化。可重复性表示为个体内变异系数(CV,%)和组内相关系数。
与 LSCI 相比,SP-LDF 和 IP-LDF 评估前臂 PORH 的可重复性较差(例如,5 分钟 PORH ΔCVC(ABS)的 CV 分别为 35%、27%和 19%),并且数据表达没有更好的方法。相比之下,指垫上的吸气喘息和冷加压试验反应的可重复性在 SP-LDF 和 IP-LDF 上优于 LSCI(例如,吸气喘息 ΔCVC(REL)的 CV 分别为 13%、7%和 19%)。PORH 反应的空间变异性在 IP-LDF 上比 LSCI 差(例如,CV 范围分别为 11-35%和 3-16%)。同时 LSCI 和 IP-LDF 灌注值之间的相关性是非线性的。
与 SP-LDF 和 IP-LDF 相比,LSCI 评估皮肤 PORH 的可重复性更好;这可能是因为测量了更大的皮肤区域(更低的站点间变异性)。然而,当测量指垫上的交感血管反射时,SP-LDF 和 IP-LDF 的可重复性更好,这可能是因为 LSCI 对低水平皮肤血流变化具有更高的敏感性。