Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Point:Counterpoint 1266 REFERENCES 1. Brunner MJ, Shoukas AA, and MacAnespie CL. The effect of the carotid sinus baroreceptor reflex on blood flow and volume redistribution in the total systemic vascular bed of the dog. Circ Res 48: 274 –285, 1981. 2. Hainsworth R and Drinkhill MJ. Counterpoint: Active venoconstriction is not an important adjunct to maintaining or raising end-diastolic volume and stroke volume during exercise and orthostasis. J Appl Physiol. In Press. 3. Herndon CW and Sagawa K. Combined effects of aortic and right atrial pressure on aortic flow. Am J Physiol 217: 65–72, 1969. 4. Karim F and Hainsworth R. Responses of abdominal vascular capacitance to stimulation of splanchnic nerves. Am J Physiol 231: 434 – 440, 1976. 5. Noble BJ, Drinkhill MJ, Myers DS, and Hainsworth R. Reflex control of splanchnic blood volume in anesthetized dogs. J Physiol 513: 363–272, 1998. 6. Rothe CF, Johns BL, and Bennett TD. Vascular capacitance of dog intestine using mean transit time of indicator. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 234: H7–H13, 1978. 7. Sheriff D. Point: The muscle pump raises muscle blood flow during locomotion. J Appl Physiol 99: 371–372, 2005. 8. Shoukas AA, MacAnespie CL, Brunner L, and Watermeier MJ. The importance of the spleen in blood volume shifts of the systemic vascular bed caused by the carotid sinus baroreceptor reflex in the dog. Circ Res 49: 759 –766, 1981. REBUTTAL FROM DRS. HAINSWORTH AND DRINKHILL The main difference between Rothe’s and our points of view seems to be in the extent to which we regard the likely effect J Appl Physiol • VOL of the reduction in capacitance caused by venous constriction in humans to be of physiological importance. We both agree that veins are the major reservoir of blood and that passive changes in volume, caused by external compression or by changes in flow into them, are probably more important than changes due to venoconstriction. We also agree that, in humans, it is likely that it is the liver that forms the major active reservoir. There is, however, a statement at the start of Rothe’s article that we would question. He states that “we bipeds. . . .have evolved active venoconstriction.” This may be so, but, as he points out in the same paragraph, “proof of active venoconstriction in humans is sparse.” This really is the nub of the problem. A major limitation to our knowledge of the importance of active venoconstriction in humans is that virtually all the research has been done in animals, mainly dogs (2, 3). In dogs, the largest controllable reservoir is the spleen and this is very much smaller in humans. In absence of evidence to the contrary, we have worked on the assumption that humans behave in the same way as splenectomized dogs, and this leads us to the conclusion that active venoconstriction is unlikely to be of major physiological importance (4, 5). In addition, we know that active venoconstriction occurs at low levels of sympathetic activity (6), which would suggest that, in supine resting humans, 50% of the response would already be engaged (1), leaving little reserve. However, if Rothe is correct and humans have indeed evolved differently from dogs, to facilitate maintenance of their upright posture, active venoconstriction could be of more importance. The problem, however, is that at present there is no evidence for this and until such evidence is forthcoming we feel we have to hold to the view that active venoconstriction is unlikely to have a major role in cardiovascular control. REFERENCES 1. Graham LN, Smith PA, Huggett RJ, Stoker JB, Mackintosh AF, and Mary DASG. Sympathetic drive in anterior and inferior uncomplicated acute myocardial infarction. Circulation: 109: 2285–2289, 2004. 2. Hainsworth R and Karim F. Responses of abdominal vascular capacitance in the anaesthetized dog to changes in carotid sinus pressure. J Physiol 262: 659 – 677, 1976. 3. Karim F and Hainsworth R. Responses of abdominal vascular capacitance to stimulation of splanchnic nerves. Am J Physiol 231: 434 – 440, 1976. 4. Noble BJ, Drinkhill MJ, Myers DS, and Hainsworth R. Reflex control of splanchnic blood volume in anaesthetized dogs. J Physiol 513.1: 263–272, 1998. 5. Noble BJ, Drinkhill MJ, Myers DS, and Hainsworth R. Blood mobilization from the liver of the anaesthetized dog. Expt Physiol 83: 513–522, 1998. 6. Noble BJ, Drinkhill MJ, Myers DS, and Hainsworth R. Mechanisms responsible for changes in abdominal vascular volume during sympathetic nerve stimulation in anaesthetized dogs. Expt Physiol 82: 925–934, 1997. 101 • OCTOBER 2006 • www.jap.org Downloaded from http://jap.physiology.org/ by 10.220.33.3 on June 16, 2017 claim a 3 ml/kg change in effective circulatory volume (the total stressed volume) of the liver and intestinal bed. In conjunction with a total body compliance of 2.5 ml䡠kg⫺1 䡠mmHg⫺1, this would change the Pmcf by 1.2 mmHg. Assuming that the Pra at equilibrium would be increased by the same amount, they then claim, using “Guyton’s curves,” that this would increase the cardiac output by only 20%. Herndon and Sagawa (Ref. 3, Fig. 7) suggest that the sensitivity of cardiac output to changes in Pra is 52 ml䡠min⫺1 䡠kg⫺1 change in flow per millimeter mercury change in Pra. Thus a change in cardiac output from a 1.2 mmHg change in Pra would be a much larger increase of 60 ml䡠min⫺1 䡠kg⫺1. Other studies have reported much larger active venous changes than the 3 ml/kg. For example, for dogs, carotid baroreceptor changes, a 7.0 ml/kg change (1); maximum sympathetic simulation, with spleen intact 7.2 ml/kg, without spleen 4.3 ml/kg (4); carotid sinus pressure changes, with spleen 8.4 ml/kg, without spleen 7.2 ml/kg (8). They also claim (Ref. 2; Fig. 2) that the intestinal bed provides a negligible active venoconstriction response based on the data from the study by Noble et al. (4). We (6) evaluated active and passive venoconstriction in segments of dog jejunum. Norepinephrine caused an active change in intestinal blood volume of 24% and a passive change of 62%. Active venoconstriction is important.