4.5 Review

Syncope, cerebral perfusion, and oxygenation

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 94, 期 3, 页码 833-848

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00260.2002

关键词

arrhythmia; blood pressure; cerebral blood flow; vasovagal; cardiac output

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During standing, both the position of the cerebral circulation and the reductions in mean arterial pressure (MAP) and cardiac output challenge cerebral autoregulatory (CA) mechanisms. Syncope is most often associated with the upright position and can be provoked by any condition that jeopardizes cerebral blood flow (CBF) and regional cerebral tissue oxygenation (cO(2)Hb). Reflex (vasovagal) responses, cardiac arrhythmias, and autonomic failure are common causes. An important defense against a critical reduction in the central blood volume is that of muscle activity (the muscle pump), and if it is not applied even normal humans faint. Continuous tracking of CBF by transcranial Doppler-determined cerebral blood velocity (V-mean) and near-infrared spectroscopy-determined cO2Hb contribute to understanding the cerebrovascular adjustments to postural stress; e. g., MAP does not necessarily reflect the cerebrovascular phenomena associated with (pre) syncope. CA may be interpreted as a frequency-dependent phenomenon with attenuated transfer of oscillations in MAP to V-mean at low frequencies. The clinical implication is that CA does not respond to rapid changes in MAP; e. g., there is a transient fall in V-mean on standing up and therefore a feeling of lightheadedness that even healthy humans sometimes experience. In subjects with recurrent vasovagal syncope, dynamic CA seems not different from that of healthy controls even during the last minutes before the syncope. Redistribution of cardiac output may affect cerebral perfusion by increased cerebral vascular resistance, supporting the view that cerebral perfusion depends on arterial inflow pressure provided that there is a sufficient cardiac output.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据