1 / 10

Pathophysiology of Brain & Body - USSJJQ-20-3

Pathophysiology of Brain & Body - USSJJQ-20-3. Venous Excess: a new approach to cardiovascular control and its teaching. BAJ Reddi & RHS Carpenter J App Physiol , August 2004 Pathophysiology of Brain & Body Tutorial. p356. Circularity of the circulation CO  VR  CO  VR

shalin
Download Presentation

Pathophysiology of Brain & Body - USSJJQ-20-3

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Pathophysiology of Brain & Body - USSJJQ-20-3 Venous Excess: a new approach to cardiovascular control and its teaching • BAJ Reddi & RHS Carpenter • J App Physiol, August 2004 • Pathophysiology of Brain & Body Tutorial

  2. p356 • Circularity of the circulation • CO  VR  CO  VR • Mixing of ‘cause & effect’ • Independent vs dependent variables • Arterial vs venous • Arterial ‘distributive’, venous ‘collective’ • Arterial Pressure as ‘error signal’ • AP reflects supply vs demand • ↑ demand  vasoldilation  ↓ TPR (+ ↓ vol)  ↓ AP • Baroreceptors ↑ HR and ↑ vasoconstriction • ↑ AP (classic –ve feedback, sustained by error sig) • Control via venous side less obvious • However, all agree that CO influenced by venous side of circulation

  3. p357 • Venous Return • Units? Quantity vs flow? • How is it measured? • If it’s flow into heart, then it must = CO • If it’s flow anywhere in venous system then = CO • So what use is it to talk about VR controlling heart when it is a consequence of CO? • Starling (1912) • Isolated heart • ↑ ven ‘head’  ↑ RAP (distension)  ↑ SV  ↑ CO • ‘guarantees’ that what is delivered to heart is expelled • (But it’s easy to think it’s the ↑ flow (VR) that is driving the ↑ CO)

  4. p357-8 • Seeing ↑ CO ‘obviously’ implies ↑ VR • ↑ VR came to be seen as the cause rather than a consequence of this effect • Confusing as CO and RAP ‘easily’ measured • VR not so (no such thing as a venousreturnometer) • AP = CO x TPR • Equivalent relationship on venous side?? • Eg VP = VR x Venous resistance?? • Strictly, ‘pressure’ is ‘pressure difference’ • Can ignore difference on arterial side (aortic P >> capillary) • But pressure difference is important on venous side • Pressure at ‘start’ (venules) similar to ‘end’ (RAP)

  5. p358 • AP = CO x TPR • Implies correct causal relationship • Aaaaaaargh! – dependant!!! • Eg CO = AP / TPR gives wrong impression • For venous side, Guyton’s VR curves imply… • VR = (MSFP – RAP) / Venous resistance • VR a consequence of RAP (all others being =) • But is this correct? • In the experiments, VR was the controlled (independent) variable, and RAP was the measured (dependent) variable • As ↑ flow, RAP ↓ • Curves led to the view that ↓ RAP, by ↑ (MSFP – RAP), ‘sucked’ more blood in • In reality, ↑ CO  shift in blood to the arterial side • which leads to a ‘venous deficit’ ↓ RAP • ie importance of ‘capacity’ and ‘volume’ – hooray!

  6. p359 • Fig 1 • Must be true in the steady-state • But when things are changing, the mismatch between inflow and outflow will affect RAP • Summary of confusion… • ↑ RAP  ↓ VR (Guyton curves) • ↑ RAP  ↑ CO (Starling’s Law) • Yet VR = CO !!

  7. p359-60 • Capacitance • Simple haemodynamic equations use pressure, flow, and resistance • Tend to ignore volumes and capacity • Not that important on the arterial side • Dominant feature on venous side • So VR = (MSFP – RAP) / Venous resistance misleading • Resistance is not very important • Ievenoconstriction  ↑ RAP  ↑ CO • Volume/capacity effects, not resistance, dominates

  8. p360 • ‘Venous Excess’ as error signal • Volume, not flow, controls RAP (and so CO) • Any mismatch between VR and CO represents an accumulating/reducing volume which will affect RAP (and so CO) • Basis for keeping VR = CO • Figs 1b and 1c appear contradictory • But 1b superimposed on ‘classic’ Guyton curve • ‘cause and effect’ wrong • Fig 1c implies proper causal mechanism • ↑ VAR  ↑ RAP ( ↑ CO )

  9. p361 • Exercise • ↑ CO shift blood to the arterial side • So VE goes negative • So how is RAP maintained/enhanced? • By ↓ venous capacity • Sympathetic venoconstriction • ‘Crushing’ action of muscle contraction • Haemorrhage • ↓ venous volume • ↓ venous volume due to ↑ HR shifting blood to the arterial side • Venous deficit ↓ SV • Sympathetic stimulation helps reverse deficit

  10. p362 • Volume vs pressure as SV regulator • Volume, via ‘stretch’ changes heart function/hormone release • Pressure changes are the consequence of volume changes, so volume is the primary stimulus • Volume changes • ↓ CO  ↓ VR • But while the direction may be the same, the magnitude may not • So a positive VE will help bolster a failing heart

More Related