54
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Regulation of cerebral blood flow in humans: physiology and clinical implications of autoregulation

      1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6
      Physiological Reviews
      American Physiological Society

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Brain function critically depends on a close matching between metabolic demands, appropriate delivery of oxygen and nutrients, and removal of cellular waste. This matching requires continuous regulation of cerebral blood flow (CBF), which can be categorized into four broad topics: 1) autoregulation, which describes the response of the cerebrovasculature to changes in perfusion pressure; 2) vascular reactivity to vasoactive stimuli [including carbon dioxide (CO 2)]; 3) neurovascular coupling (NVC), i.e., the CBF response to local changes in neural activity (often standardized cognitive stimuli in humans); and 4) endothelium-dependent responses. This review focuses primarily on autoregulation and its clinical implications. To place autoregulation in a more precise context, and to better understand integrated approaches in the cerebral circulation, we also briefly address reactivity to CO 2 and NVC. In addition to our focus on effects of perfusion pressure (or blood pressure), we describe the impact of select stimuli on regulation of CBF (i.e., arterial blood gases, cerebral metabolism, neural mechanisms, and specific vascular cells), the interrelationships between these stimuli, and implications for regulation of CBF at the level of large arteries and the microcirculation. We review clinical implications of autoregulation in aging, hypertension, stroke, mild cognitive impairment, anesthesia, and dementias. Finally, we discuss autoregulation in the context of common daily physiological challenges, including changes in posture (e.g., orthostatic hypotension, syncope) and physical activity.

          Related collections

          Most cited references630

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          NIA-AA Research Framework: Toward a biological definition of Alzheimer’s disease

          In 2011, the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association created separate diagnostic recommendations for the preclinical, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia stages of Alzheimer’s disease. Scientific progress in the interim led to an initiative by the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association to update and unify the 2011 guidelines. This unifying update is labeled a “research framework” because its intended use is for observational and interventional research, not routine clinical care. In the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association Research Framework, Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is defined by its underlying pathologic processes that can be documented by postmortem examination or in vivo by biomarkers. The diagnosis is not based on the clinical consequences of the disease (i.e., symptoms/signs) in this research framework, which shifts the definition of AD in living people from a syndromal to a biological construct. The research framework focuses on the diagnosis of AD with biomarkers in living persons. Biomarkers are grouped into those of β amyloid deposition, pathologic tau, and neurodegeneration [AT(N)]. This ATN classification system groups different biomarkers (imaging and biofluids) by the pathologic process each measures. The AT(N) system is flexible in that new biomarkers can be added to the three existing AT(N) groups, and new biomarker groups beyond AT(N) can be added when they become available. We focus on AD as a continuum, and cognitive staging may be accomplished using continuous measures. However, we also outline two different categorical cognitive schemes for staging the severity of cognitive impairment: a scheme using three traditional syndromal categories and a six-stage numeric scheme. It is important to stress that this framework seeks to create a common language with which investigators can generate and test hypotheses about the interactions among different pathologic processes (denoted by biomarkers) and cognitive symptoms. We appreciate the concern that this biomarker-based research framework has the potential to be misused. Therefore, we emphasize, first, it is premature and inappropriate to use this research framework in general medical practice. Second, this research framework should not be used to restrict alternative approaches to hypothesis testing that do not use biomarkers. There will be situations where biomarkers are not available or requiring them would be counterproductive to the specific research goals (discussed in more detail later in the document). Thus, biomarker-based research should not be considered a template for all research into age-related cognitive impairment and dementia; rather, it should be applied when it is fit for the purpose of the specific research goals of a study. Importantly, this framework should be examined in diverse populations. Although it is possible that β-amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tau deposits are not causal in AD pathogenesis, it is these abnormal protein deposits that define AD as a unique neurodegenerative disease among different disorders that can lead to dementia. We envision that defining AD as a biological construct will enable a more accurate characterization and understanding of the sequence of events that lead to cognitive impairment that is associated with AD, as well as the multifactorial etiology of dementia. This approach also will enable a more precise approach to interventional trials where specific pathways can be targeted in the disease process and in the appropriate people.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Dementia prevention, intervention, and care

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Neuroimaging standards for research into small vessel disease and its contribution to ageing and neurodegeneration

              Summary Cerebral small vessel disease (SVD) is a common accompaniment of ageing. Features seen on neuroimaging include recent small subcortical infarcts, lacunes, white matter hyperintensities, perivascular spaces, microbleeds, and brain atrophy. SVD can present as a stroke or cognitive decline, or can have few or no symptoms. SVD frequently coexists with neurodegenerative disease, and can exacerbate cognitive deficits, physical disabilities, and other symptoms of neurodegeneration. Terminology and definitions for imaging the features of SVD vary widely, which is also true for protocols for image acquisition and image analysis. This lack of consistency hampers progress in identifying the contribution of SVD to the pathophysiology and clinical features of common neurodegenerative diseases. We are an international working group from the Centres of Excellence in Neurodegeneration. We completed a structured process to develop definitions and imaging standards for markers and consequences of SVD. We aimed to achieve the following: first, to provide a common advisory about terms and definitions for features visible on MRI; second, to suggest minimum standards for image acquisition and analysis; third, to agree on standards for scientific reporting of changes related to SVD on neuroimaging; and fourth, to review emerging imaging methods for detection and quantification of preclinical manifestations of SVD. Our findings and recommendations apply to research studies, and can be used in the clinical setting to standardise image interpretation, acquisition, and reporting. This Position Paper summarises the main outcomes of this international effort to provide the STandards for ReportIng Vascular changes on nEuroimaging (STRIVE).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Physiological Reviews
                Physiological Reviews
                American Physiological Society
                0031-9333
                1522-1210
                October 01 2021
                October 01 2021
                : 101
                : 4
                : 1487-1559
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Geriatrics, Radboud University Medical Center, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behaviour, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
                [2 ]Department of Physiology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
                [3 ]Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, United Kingdom
                [4 ]Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
                [5 ]>National Institute for Health Research Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
                [6 ]Departments of Internal Medicine, Neuroscience, and Pharmacology, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
                Article
                10.1152/physrev.00022.2020
                33769101
                6f404937-c36c-4742-81b3-735b24d25dad
                © 2021
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article