Why the study?
Does lower body negative pressure (LBNP) reveal advantageous adaptations in cerebrovascular regulation in spinal cord-injured individuals compared to able-bodied individuals?
Does lower body negative pressure (LBNP) reveal advantageous adaptations in cerebrovascular regulation in spinal cord-injured individuals compared to able-bodied individuals?
Spinal cord-injured individuals do not exhibit advantageous cerebrovascular adaptations during orthostatic stress compared to able-bodied individuals, experiencing greater decreases in cerebral blood flow velocity.
SCI individuals show greater orthostatic CBFv reductions; hypothesis-generating and should not yet alter clinical management.
Spinal cord-injured (SCI) individuals, having a sympathetic nervous system lesion, experience hypotension during sitting and standing. Surprisingly, they experience few syncopal events. This suggests adaptations in cerebrovascular regulation. Therefore, changes in systemic circulation, cerebral blood flow, and oxygenation in eight SCI individuals were compared with eight able-bodied (AB) individuals. Systemic circulation was manipulated by lower body negative pressure at several levels down to -60 mmHg. At each level, we measured steady-state blood pressure, changes in cerebral blood velocity with transcranial Doppler, and cerebral oxygenation using near-infrared spectroscopy. We found that mean arterial pressure decreased significantly in SCI but not in AB individuals, in accordance with the sympathetic impairment in the SCI group. Cerebral blood flow velocity decreased during orthostatic stress in both groups, but this decrease was significantly greater in SCI individuals. Cerebral oxygenation decreased in both groups, with a tendency to a greater decrease in SCI individuals. Thus present data do not support an advantageous mechanism during orthostatic stress in the cerebrovascular regulation of SCI individuals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Houtman et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: