TY - JOUR
T1 - A comparison of protocols for simulating hemorrhage in humans
T2 - Step versus ramp lower body negative pressure
AU - Rosenberg, Alexander J.
AU - Kay, Victoria L.
AU - Anderson, Garen K.
AU - Sprick, Justin D.
AU - Rickards, Caroline A.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2021 the American Physiological Society
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - 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 (N = 19; age, 27 ± 4 y; 7 female/12 male) completed a 1) step LBNP protocol (5-min steps) and 2) 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 (ScO2), and end-tidal CO2 (etCO2) 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; P = 0.12) and the magnitude of central hypovolemia (%D SV, step: -54.6% ± 2.6% vs. ramp: -52.1% ± 2.8%; P = 0.32) were similar between protocols. Although there were no differences between protocols for the maximal %D HR (P = 0.88), the %D MAP during the step protocol was attenuated (P = 0.05), and the reductions in MCAv, PCAv, ScO2, and etCO2 were greater (P ≤ 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.
AB - 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 (N = 19; age, 27 ± 4 y; 7 female/12 male) completed a 1) step LBNP protocol (5-min steps) and 2) 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 (ScO2), and end-tidal CO2 (etCO2) 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; P = 0.12) and the magnitude of central hypovolemia (%D SV, step: -54.6% ± 2.6% vs. ramp: -52.1% ± 2.8%; P = 0.32) were similar between protocols. Although there were no differences between protocols for the maximal %D HR (P = 0.88), the %D MAP during the step protocol was attenuated (P = 0.05), and the reductions in MCAv, PCAv, ScO2, and etCO2 were greater (P ≤ 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.
KW - Central hypovolemia
KW - Cerebral blood velocity
KW - Lower body negative pressure
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85102213222&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1152/JAPPLPHYSIOL.00230.2020
DO - 10.1152/JAPPLPHYSIOL.00230.2020
M3 - Article
C2 - 33211600
AN - SCOPUS:85102213222
SN - 8750-7587
VL - 130
SP - 380
EP - 389
JO - Journal of Applied Physiology
JF - Journal of Applied Physiology
IS - 2
ER -