Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
There is a need for improved understanding of how different cerebrovascular reactivity (CVR) protocols affect vascular cross-sectional area (CSA) when measures of vascular CSA are not feasible. In human participants, we delivered ~±4mmHg end-tidal partial pressure of CO 2 (PETCO 2 ) relative to baseline through controlled delivery, and measured changes in middle cerebral artery (MCA) cross-sectional area (CSA; magnetic resonance imaging (7 Tesla MRI)), blood velocity (transcranial Doppler and Phase contrast MRI), and calculated CVR based on steady-state versus a ramp protocol during two protocols: a 3-minute steady-state (+4mmHg PETCO 2 ) and a ramp (delta of −3 to +4mmHg of PETCO 2 ). We observed that 1) the MCA did not dilate during the ramp protocol, but did dilate during steady-state hypercapnia, and 2) MCA blood velocity CVR was similar between ramp and steady-state hypercapnia protocols, although calculated MCA blood flow CVR was greater during steady-state hypercapnia than during ramp, the discrepancy due to MCA CSA changes during steady-state hypercapnia. Due to the ability to achieve similar levels of MCA blood velocity CVR as steady-state hypercapnia, the lack of change in MCA cross-sectional area, and the minimal expected change in blood pressure, we propose that a ramp model, across a delta of ~−3 to +4mmHg PETCO 2 , may provide one alternative approach to collecting CVR measures in young adults with TCD when CSA measures are not feasible.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Al‐Khazraji et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: