Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Design
Editorial
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The authors dispute claims that spontaneous baroreflex sensitivity indices are inadequate for exploring baroreflex function, arguing for their continued physiological and clinical relevance.
While several papers support the physiological and clinical relevance of indices quantifying the sensitivity of spontaneous baroreflex control of heart rate (BRS), 1 Lipman et al 2 claim that they are unable to properly explore baroreflex function because spontaneous BRS was found to be quantitatively different from BRS values provided by the vasoactive drug injection technique and is unrelated to common carotid artery distensibility. We believe that this conclusion is not supported by Lipman's data, for the following reasons.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Parati et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: