Cerebral and Cardiovascular Physiology Laboratory, Department of Physiology and Anatomy, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, Texas.
Division of Renal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2021 Feb 1;130(2):380-389. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00230.2020. Epub 2020 Nov 19.
Lower body negative pressure (LBNP) elicits central hypovolemia, and it has been used to simulate the cardiovascular and cerebrovascular responses to hemorrhage in humans. LBNP protocols commonly use progressive stepwise reductions in chamber pressure for specific time periods. However, continuous ramp LBNP protocols have also been utilized to simulate the continuous nature of most bleeding injuries. The aim of this study was to compare tolerance and hemodynamic responses between these two LBNP profiles. Healthy human subjects ( = 19; age, 27 ± 4 y; 7 female/12 male) completed a ) step LBNP protocol (5-min steps) and ) continuous ramp LBNP protocol (3 mmHg/min), both to presyncope. Heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), stroke volume (SV), middle and posterior cerebral artery velocity (MCAv and PCAv), cerebral oxygen saturation (ScO), and end-tidal CO (etCO) were measured. LBNP tolerance, via the cumulative stress index (CSI, summation of chamber pressure × time at each pressure), and hemodynamic responses were compared between the two protocols. The CSI (step: 911 ± 97 mmHg/min vs. ramp: 823 ± 83 mmHg/min; = 0.12) and the magnitude of central hypovolemia (%Δ SV, step: -54.6% ± 2.6% vs. ramp: -52.1% ± 2.8%; = 0.32) were similar between protocols. Although there were no differences between protocols for the maximal %Δ HR ( = 0.88), the %Δ MAP during the step protocol was attenuated ( = 0.05), and the reductions in MCAv, PCAv, ScO, and etCO were greater ( ≤ 0.08) when compared with the ramp protocol at presyncope. These results indicate that when comparing cardiovascular responses to LBNP across different laboratories, the specific pressure profile must be considered as a potential confounding factor. Ramp lower body negative pressure (LBNP) protocols have been utilized to simulate the continuous nature of bleeding injuries. However, it unknown if tolerance or the physiological responses to ramp LBNP are similar to the more common stepwise LBNP protocol. We report similar tolerance between the two protocols, but the step protocol elicited a greater increase in cerebral oxygen extraction in the presence of reduced blood flow, presumably facilitating the matching of metabolic supply and demand.
下体负压(LBNP)会引起中心性血容量减少,已被用于模拟人体出血引起的心血管和脑血管反应。LBNP 方案通常使用分阶段逐步降低室压的方法,持续特定时间。然而,连续斜坡 LBNP 方案也已被用于模拟大多数出血损伤的连续性。本研究旨在比较这两种 LBNP 方案的耐受性和血液动力学反应。健康的人类受试者(n=19;年龄 27±4 岁;7 名女性/12 名男性)完成了 a) 台阶 LBNP 方案(5 分钟台阶)和 b) 连续斜坡 LBNP 方案(3mmHg/min),直至出现晕厥。测量心率(HR)、平均动脉压(MAP)、每搏量(SV)、大脑中动脉速度(MCAv 和 PCAv)、脑氧饱和度(ScO)和呼气末 CO(etCO)。通过累积应激指数(CSI,每个压力下腔室压力×时间的总和)比较两种方案的 LBNP 耐受性和血液动力学反应。两种方案的 CSI(台阶:911±97mmHg/min 与斜坡:823±83mmHg/min;=0.12)和中心性血容量减少的程度(%ΔSV,台阶:-54.6%±2.6%与斜坡:-52.1%±2.8%;=0.32)相似。虽然两种方案的最大%ΔHR 之间没有差异(=0.88),但在台阶方案中,%ΔMAP 被减弱(=0.05),并且在晕厥时,MCAv、PCAv、ScO 和 etCO 的降低幅度更大(≤0.08)与斜坡方案相比。这些结果表明,当在不同实验室比较 LBNP 的心血管反应时,必须考虑特定的压力曲线作为潜在的混杂因素。连续斜坡 LBNP 方案已被用于模拟出血损伤的连续性。然而,尚不清楚斜坡 LBNP 的耐受性或生理反应是否与更常见的分阶段 LBNP 方案相似。我们报告两种方案的耐受性相似,但台阶方案在血流减少的情况下引起了更大的脑氧摄取增加,这可能有助于代谢供应和需求的匹配。