HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 551/2/402    most recent jphysiol.2003.050609v1 Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by van Lieshout, J. J. Articles by Wieling, W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by van Lieshout, J. J. Articles by Wieling, W. Related Collections Perspectives

J Physiol (2003), 551.2, p. 402
© Copyright 2003 The Physiological Society
DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2003.050609

Perfusion of the human brain: a matter of interactions

Johannes J. van Lieshout and Wouter Wieling

Email: j.j.vanlieshout{at}amc.uva.nl

A characteristic feature of the cerebral circulation is that the cerebral blood flow is dynamically adjusted to protect brain blood flow from changes in perfusion pressure (Roy & Sherrington 1890). Cerebral blood flow tends to remain constant over a range of systemic blood pressures. This is termed cerebral autoregulation. Both local mechanisms and autonomic neural control participate in cerebral autoregulation. Increases and decreases of the arterial CO₂ tension (P_a,CO2) will increase and decrease cerebral blood flow by cerebral vasodilatation and vasoconstriction, respectively, independent of cerebral autoregulation (Lennox & Gibbs 1932). This phenomenon is known as the CO₂ reactivity of the brain. The limits of the blood pressure range within which cerebral autoregulation operates are modified by P_a,CO2 and the CO₂ reactivity of the brain can interfere with cerebral autoregulation.

In this issue of The Journal of Physiology, LeMarbre et al. (2003) add valuable new data by their study of the effects of sympathetic activation on the CO₂ reactivity of the brain. With ventilation kept constant, they documented that an increase in sympathetic vasomotor outflow by baroreceptor unloading using 40 mmHg lower body negative pressure (LBNP) does not alter CO₂ reactivity of the brain. The issue has been addressed earlier by Tominaga et al. (1976) in a different setting when they demonstrated that the rise in cerebral blood flow during CO₂ inhalation was not influenced by ganglionic blockade with trimethaphan that blocked the concomitant rise in systemic blood pressure. The physiological significance of the findings of the present study is that sympathetic tone and end-tidal CO₂ level (P_ET,CO2) as a reflection of P_a,CO2 are two determinants of cerebral perfusion in humans that seem to operate independently. In order to account for the effects of CO₂ on respiration, LeMarbre et al. had to maintain ventilation at a level almost fourfold higher than the control situation. That the circumstances of this elegantly designed study therefore do not directly reflect the normal situation does not detract from the conclusions. They illustrate the complexity of neural, local and mechanical interactions of the cerebral circulation when studied in intact humans.

When we stand still for some minutes, cerebral blood flow volume (CBFV) and cerebral cortical oxygenation decrease, although the drop in blood pressure at the level of the cerebral arteries may well be within the autoregulatory range (Harms et al. 2000). CO₂ may play a role since orthostatic stress itself is associated with a reduction in P_ET,CO2. This is attributed to an increase in tidal volume and/or functional residual capacity and a slight gravity-induced ventilation-perfusion mismatch upon standing (Bjurstedt et al. 1962). Until recently the sympathetic nervous system was held to exert only an insignificant tonic influence on human cerebral vessels under physiological conditions. There is, however, accumulating evidence that cerebral perfusion may be affected by sympathetically mediated cerebral vasoconstriction in response to a large reduction in cardiac output (van Lieshout et al. 2003). This may be the case in subjects with postural tachycardia syndrome who exhibit a reduction in CBFV with presyncopal symptoms despite well maintained mean arterial pressure and presumably cerebral perfusion pressure (Jacob et al. 1999). This is different from what happens during an actual faint where the low systemic blood pressure and the hyperventilation associated hypocapnia decrease cerebral blood flow below levels sufficient to maintain consciousness.

LeMarbre et al. found that during LBNP with P_ET,CO2 held constant CBFV was maintained. However, during isocapnic passive head-up tilt CBFV declines ~15 % (Blaber et al. 2001). Then why do the brain vessels appear to constrict more during normal orthostatic stress than during orthostatic stress simulated by LBNP? The degree of baroreflex unloading by 40 mmHg LBNP was assumed by LeMarbre et al. to be equivalent to that produced by the upright posture. A possible explanation is that the upright position with the carotid baroreceptors placed above heart level elicits additional baroreceptor unloading. The idea that autonomic sympathetic control of the cerebral circulation is tonically active is still speculative (Zhang et al. 2002) and new studies that define the circumstances are needed. The issue of why brain blood flow falls during orthostatic stress in the apparent presence of adequate perfusion pressure is an important issue for those who seek to understand how humans remain upright.

Bjurstedt H, Hesser CM, Liljestrand G & Matell G (1962). Acta Physiol Scand 54, 65-82.
Blaber AP, Bondar RL, Moradshahi P, Serrador JM & Hughson RL (2001). Aviat Space Environ Med 72, 985-991.	[Medline]
Harms MPM, Colier WNJM, Wieling W, Lenders JW, Secher NH & van Lieshout JJ (2000). Stroke 31, 1608-1614.	[Abstract/Full Text]
Jacob G, Atkinson D, Jordan J, Shannon JR, Furlan R, Black BK & Robertson D (1999). Am J Med 106, 59-64.	[Medline]
LeMarbre G, Stauber S, Khayat RN, Puleo DS, Skatrud JB & Morgan BJ. et al. (2003). J Physiol 551, 609-616.
Lennox WG & Gibbs EL (1932). J Clin Invest 11, 1155-1177.
Roy CS & Sherrington CS (1890). J Physiol 11, 85-108.
Tominaga S, Strandgaard S, Uemura K, Ito K & Kutsuzawa T (1976). Stroke 7, 507-510.	[Abstract]
van Lieshout JJ, Wieling W, Karemaker JM & Secher NH (2003). J Appl Physiol 94, 833-848.	[Abstract/Full Text]
Zhang R, Zuckerman JH, Iwasaki K, Wilson TE, Crandall CG & Levine BD (2002). Circulation 106, 1814-1820.	[Abstract/Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. V. Immink, N. H. Secher, and J. J. van Lieshout Cerebral Autoregulation and CO2 Responsiveness of the Brain Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, October 1, 2006; 291(4): H2018 - H2018. [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 551/2/402    most recent jphysiol.2003.050609v1 Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by van Lieshout, J. J. Articles by Wieling, W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by van Lieshout, J. J. Articles by Wieling, W. Related Collections Perspectives