Open AccessA comparison of protocols for simulating hemorrhage in humans: step versus ramp lower body negative pressure
Author(s) -
Alexander J. Rosenberg,
Victoria Kay,
Garen K. Anderson,
Justin D. Sprick,
Caroline A. Rickards
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of applied physiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.253
H-Index - 229
eISSN - 8750-7587
pISSN - 1522-1601
DOI - 10.1152/japplphysiol.00230.2020
Subject(s) - presyncope , hypovolemia , medicine , heart rate , hemodynamics , blood pressure , anesthesia , mean arterial pressure , stroke volume , cardiology
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 (ScO 2 ), and end-tidal CO 2 (etCO 2 ) 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 (%Δ 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 %Δ HR ( P = 0.88), the %Δ MAP during the step protocol was attenuated ( P = 0.05), and the reductions in MCAv, PCAv, ScO 2 , and etCO 2 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. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Ramp lower body negative pressure (LBNP) protocols have been utilized to simulate the continuous nature of bleeding injuries. However, it unknown if tolerance or the physiological responses to ramp LBNP are similar to the more common stepwise LBNP protocol. We report similar tolerance between the two protocols, but the step protocol elicited a greater increase in cerebral oxygen extraction in the presence of reduced blood flow, presumably facilitating the matching of metabolic supply and demand.