3.9 Review

LBNP: Past protocols and technical considerations for experimental design

期刊

AVIATION SPACE AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE
卷 79, 期 5, 页码 459-471

出版社

AEROSPACE MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.3357/ASEM.2161.2008

关键词

orthostasis; spaceflight; countermeasures; cardiovascular; LBNP methodology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

introduction: Lower body negative pressure (LBNP) has been used for decades to simulate orthostatic stress and the effects of blood loss in humans. Since the definitive review of LBNP in 1974, new applications have been developed and research has revealed conflicting cardiovascular and neurohormonal responses during and after LBNP. Methods: A search of the literature was conducted for 1964-2007 using the Web of Science and the search terms cardiovascular system, orthostasis, spaceflight, and methodologies to identify publications in English that describe human studies where LBNP was used to simulate orthostasis. Publications cited in the earlier review were excluded, leaving a total of 215 articles for consideration. Results: We divided the reported protocols into eight categories based on the pressure, pattern, and duration of the stimulus: 1) mild, constant, short; 2) mild, constant, long; 3) mild, ramp, short; 4) mild, ramp, long; 5) moderate-to-strong, constant, short; 6) moderate, constant, long; 7) moderate-to-strong, ramp, short; and 8) strong, ramp, long. The review showed that these protocols stimulate different reflexes and can be used to produce particular responses. Discussion: Based on the review, we developed guidelines for using LBNP in a predictable and reproducible manner. Variables that must he controlled include subject characteristics, procedures, and environmental conditions as well as specifications for the LBNP chamber and seal positioning. An understanding of the many technical details of such experiments and the nature of elicited cardiovascular and neurohormonal responses is required to design optimal protocols to address specific research questions.

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

3.9
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