← 专区目录
目录 · 跳到任一小节
生理学 · 朱涵专区 · 专题 02/03(课程主线,非本人论文)

压力感受性反射:身体里的血压恒温器

朱涵(郑州大学基础医学院生理学与神经生物学系)课上这条主线的中文精讲 | 英文对照:Di Rienzo M, Parati G, Radaelli A, Castiglioni P. Baroreflex contribution to blood pressure and heart rate oscillations: time scales, time-variant characteristics and nonlinearities. Phil Trans R Soc A 2009;367(1892):1301(开放获取,PMC2635500)
这不是朱涵老师的论文。她本人的文章发在中文期刊,国际索引里查不到;这里只是一篇开放获取综述,用来给这一节配英文原话。下划线 = 中文容易"变味"或丢信息的词句:红线带编号 = 13 条注释卡(悬停看、点击跳转)。标题里的"恒温器"是个借来的比喻,我在第十节会把它拆掉。英文原文附于文末

这一页是什么,不是什么

三句话把边界画清楚。

一、这不是她的论文。朱涵老师是教学型老师,20 年上课,参编过 3 部生理学中英文教材,但国际索引里查不到她的第一作者论文。这一页的知识主干,是她在《生理学》里讲的压力感受性反射——血压怎么被"稳住"。为了让你能顺手对上英文,我从一篇开放获取综述里摘了原句、逐句配中文,红线挂在那几个英文术语上。原文是 Di Rienzo 等人 2009 年发在 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 上的一篇方法学综述。

二、这篇英文讲的不是"入门"。它不介绍反射弧,它假设你已经知道反射弧,然后专门拆三件麻烦事:时间尺度(这反射到底管几秒到几天里的哪一段)、时变(增益随时被改写)、非线性(曲线是 S 形,还带随机共振)。你课上背的"升压→减压"是这条曲线的中段;这篇讲的是中段以外长什么样。

三、页面上两种内容分开标。凡是标 教材 的,是生理学教科书口径(解剖定位、通路、离子),不在这篇英文里;凡是标 原文 的,逐字来自那篇综述。两边别混着背——尤其"孤束核"这种名字,原文里根本没出现(见注 5)。

一句我想让你一开始就带着的问题:一个把血压"稳住"的反射,为什么高血压病人的血压没有被它稳回去?下面十节,都在回答这一个问题。

一、感受器:两根大血管上的两个压力表

教材 动脉压力感受器是两根大血管壁里的神经末梢:一处是颈动脉窦——颈总动脉分叉处、颈内动脉起始的那个膨大;另一处是主动脉弓。它不是一个"感受压力的细胞",而是埋在血管外膜里的机械敏感末梢:血管壁被撑开,末梢被拉变形,机械门控的阳离子通道打开,末梢去极化,于是发出动作电位。

这带来三个性质,考试容易含糊,但在实验室里必须清楚:

  • 它编码的是"被撑开的程度",不是"血压这个数字"。血管壁的弹性、硬化程度会改变同一个血压对应的牵张量。老年人动脉硬化,同样压力下血管壁被撑开的幅度变小——这是老年 BRS 下降的机械学基础之一。
  • 它一直在放电。正常血压下就有持续的背景放电(教材口径:颈动脉窦单纤维在 100 mmHg 附近有稳定自发放电)。中枢收到的不是"有/无"信号,而是一条一直在响、频率随压力起伏的线。频率升高 = 血压升高,频率下降 = 血压降低,包括低于正常的那一段。
  • 它对"变化"比对"水平"更敏感。同一平均压下,搏动性灌注比恒压灌注让感受器放电更多,因为收缩期那一瞬的上升速率本身就是有效刺激。这一点原文说得很直接:

原文怎么说 · 感受器的两条脾气

“BP information is sensed by stretch receptors (baroreceptors) mainly located on the wall of carotid arteries and aorta.”

译:血压信息由机械牵张感受器(压力感受器)感知,它们主要分布在颈动脉与主动脉的管壁上。

“the baroreceptors are differently sensitive to steady BP levels and to the rate of pressure changes with an increase in the firing rate in correspondence with pressure rises”

译:压力感受器对"稳定的血压水平"和"血压变化的速率"敏感程度不同——压力上升时放电频率增加。

第二句是这一节最值钱的一句。它说明"血压"对感受器来说不是一个数,而是一条曲线加一个导数。你以后看到"压力感受性反射敏感性下降",要追问一句:是曲线变平了,还是导数那一路丢了。

两处感受器不是冗余备份。原文明确说两处传入的放电特性不同、中枢怎么整合"不完全清楚":

原文怎么说 · 两处传入并不等价

“differences have been observed between the neural afferent outflow of the baroreceptors located at the carotid and aortic sites. How information stemming from these two families of baroreceptors is integrated at the central level is not entirely clear”

译:位于颈动脉与主动脉两处的压力感受器,其传入神经放电存在差异;这两组感受器送来的信息在中枢如何整合,目前并不完全清楚。

教材 口径:主动脉弓的阈值比颈动脉窦高,一般在更高的压力区间才被明显募集;颈动脉窦更灵敏,对心率那条支路贡献更直接。这句话在教科书里是常识,在这篇综述里是"尚未解决"。两种说法都要知道——考试答教材,写讨论时知道边界在哪。

二、传入与中枢:从窦神经到孤束核

教材 颈动脉窦的传入走窦神经(Hering 神经,舌咽神经 IX 的分支)→ 延髓孤束核(nucleus tractus solitarius, NTS)吻侧部;主动脉弓的传入走迷走神经(X,减压神经)→ 结状神经节 → 同一个 NTS。两路在 NTS 会合,这是血压信息进入脑干的那道门。

NTS 之后是一条你最好背下来的双抑制链:NTS 的谷氨酸能神经元兴奋尾端腹外侧延髓(CVLM,GABA 能)→ CVLM 抑制吻端腹外侧延髓(RVLM,交感前运动神经元)→ 交感传出减少;同时 NTS 兴奋疑核与迷走背核 → 心迷走传出增加。

这条链解释了反射的"符号"从哪来:血压升高的信号,最后是通过抑制一个抑制性神经元来关掉交感。所以看到"反射性交感抑制",脑子里要出现"两级抑制串联",不是"某个神经元被压力直接关掉"。

原文在这一段只写到"脑干控制中枢"这一步:

原文怎么说 · 只写到"脑干"

“information is sent to control centres located in the brain stem through afferent neural fibres. These centres process the baroreceptor inputs and modulate autonomic outflow so as to produce changes in the cardiovascular variables”

译:信息经传入神经纤维送到位于脑干的控制中枢。这些中枢处理感受器送来的输入,并调制自主神经传出,从而改变心血管变量。

看到 "brain stem control centres" 这种泛称,别以为作者不知道解剖。这是信号分析视角的写法:他关心"中枢→传出"这一段的传递函数,不关心核团名字。你要做的是把两边接起来(见注 5)。

三、传出与效应器:三个旋钮

反射的输出只有三个旋钮,各带自己的时间常数:

  • 心率:走心迷走(快,乙酰胆碱作用于窦房结 M2 受体,一两个心搏内见效),也走心交感(慢,去甲肾上腺素)。这是最快的一路,也是临床上最好测的一路。
  • 心肌收缩力:交感为主,影响每搏量。
  • 外周阻力:交感 α1 → 微动脉收缩。这是最有力的一路,但慢(几秒到十几秒)而且难测。

于是有了这一节最重要的方法学事实——我们平时说的"压力感受性反射敏感性",是用最短的腿代表最有力量的腿:

原文怎么说 · 用方便的量代替有效的量

“Although the most effective limb of the baroreflex cardiovascular control is the regulation of peripheral resistance (obtained by an efferent sympathetic modulation of the lumen of the arterioles), the overall efficiency of the baroreflex is commonly inferred from the evaluation of the baroreflex control of HR, because of its simpler assessment.”

译:虽然压力感受性反射对心血管控制最有效的一支是调节外周阻力(由传出交感神经调制微动脉管腔口径实现),但评价压力反射的整体效率时,人们通常用它对心率的控制来推断,,因为这一支更容易测。

这句话应该贴在你实验记录本的封面上。你测的是心率,你想说的可能是"压力反射",中间隔着一句 "commonly inferred"。做实验的人必须知道自己站在哪个"推断"上。

具体怎么算,原文给的定义是:

原文怎么说 · BRS 怎么定义

“BRS is defined as the change in the RR interval (RRI, the reciprocal of HR, measured as the time interval between consecutive R peaks of the electrocardiogram) following a unitary change in BP…”

译:BRS 定义为:血压每变化一个单位,RR 间期(RRI,即心率的倒数,用心电图相邻 R 峰之间的时间间隔测量)随之改变的量;单位是毫秒每毫米汞柱(ms/mmHg)。

注意它用的是 RR 间期,不是心率。心率与 RR 是倒数关系,用哪一个算斜率结果不一样,各有各的非线性麻烦。你若在组会上说"心率变化了 5 bpm",那不是 BRS(见注 7)。

四、"缓冲"不是"设定"

原文第一句就定了性:

原文怎么说 · 目标不是某个数

“The ultimate goal of the arterial baroreflex is to maintain BP homeostasis. This reflex mechanism counteracts deviations of BP from a reference set point by modulating HR, peripheral vascular tone and other cardiovascular variables through autonomic paths.”

译:动脉压力感受性反射的终极目标是维持血压的稳态。这一反射机制通过自主神经通路调制心率、外周血管张力和其他心血管变量,对抗血压偏离参考设定点的部分。

两个词要咬住:counteract(对抗、抵消)和 deviations(偏离)。反射的输入是"误差",输出是"抵消误差"。它从来不知道"正常血压应该是 120/80"——那个数是别的系统在更长时间尺度上定的(见第十节)。

最干净的证据来自"把反射关掉"的实验:手术切断颈动脉窦与主动脉弓的传入纤维,叫去窦主动脉神经(sinoaortic denervation, SAD)。经典犬实验的结果是:

原文怎么说 · 关掉它以后,均值几乎没变

“after denervation BP mean value was only minimally increased while fast BPV dramatically increased in response to postural changes and physical activity”

译:去神经之后,血压的平均值只轻微升高,而快速成分的血压变异性在体位改变和身体活动时剧烈增大。

这一句是整页的支点:均值不变、波动爆炸。如果反射是"设定血压的恒温器",切掉它血压应该塌掉或者飙上去;结果它只让血压变得"晃"。原文据此下的结论很克制——压力反射对血压的长期成分没有影响,它缓冲的是最快的那部分变化。

把这两段话合起来,你会得到一个对你以后读文献很有用的判据:凡是声称"某机制调控血压"的研究,先看它测的是均值还是变异性。测变异性的,多半在说反射、缓冲这一路;测均值的,得往容量和肾脏那边找。

五、时变:增益被随时改写

这是这篇综述真正的主角。压力感受性反射的"增益"(gain,同样一个压力变化能换来多大的心率或阻力变化)不是常数,它每时每刻都在被上位中枢改写。

为什么必须能改?想一个很朴素的场景:跑步时血压需要升高,肌肉才灌得上血。可反射又极其高效,你要它维持血压,它就真维持住——那血压怎么升得上去?答案是:先把增益调小。

原文怎么说 · 所谓"压力反射悖论"

“Given the intrinsic high efficiency of the baroreflex, this pressure rise can be obtained only through a reduction in the baroreflex gain. Indeed, should the baroreflex gain remain stable at its maximal value, no pressure increase would be allowed”

译:鉴于压力反射本身效率很高,这种血压升高只能通过降低压力反射增益来实现。事实上,如果增益一直停留在最大值,血压就不允许升高。

这段话把"反射坏了"和"反射被关小了"彻底分开。运动时血压升高、情绪激动时血压升高,都不是反射失灵,而是反射被主动调低。你在动物房抓老鼠、换笼子、给药,血压都会升——那可能不是病理,是增益被应激调低了。

原文把这一整套叫 time-variant(时变)特性,给了两个具体例子:一个人一天里做不同活动时,BRS 会在几分钟内上下跳;健康年轻人 BRS 白天低、夜间高,而夜间反射效率升高正好可以解释夜间血压下降(nocturnal dip)。老年高血压患者这层昼夜调制变钝,夜间血压下降也随之减少。

原文怎么说 · 昼夜

“it has been shown that in young healthy subjects the baroreflex gain is lower during the day and higher at night”

“the increased efficiency of the baroreflex control at night might explain the nocturnal BP reduction”

译:在年轻健康受试者中,压力反射增益白天较低、夜间较高;夜间压力反射控制效率的升高,可能解释夜间的血压下降。

注意 "might explain":这是假说,不是定论。你写综述时抄这句话,要把 might 一起抄过去。

还有一个更细的观察:即使受试者处在同一稳定状态,BRS 也存在"内在的快变异性"。原文老实承认,目前不知道这是真实的生理现象,还是估计算法引入的噪声。做方法学的人肯写这一句,很难得。它直接意味着:任何单次 BRS 测量,都带着一个你不知道来源的误差带。

六、重调定:感受器自己会搬家

如果只有"增益可调",高血压还是很难解释——长期高血压时,反射为什么没把血压拉回来?一个关键机制叫重调定(resetting):

原文怎么说 · resetting 的定义

“Similar to other biological receptors, baroreceptors also tend to reduce their firing rate and update their operating point to the new average level of stimulation when subjected to a sustained stimulation for a long period (hours, days and months).”

译:与其他生物感受器类似,压力感受器在受到长时间(数小时、数天乃至数月)的持续刺激时,也会倾向于降低放电频率,并把工作点更新到新的平均刺激水平上。

关键词是"工作点"(operating point)和时间尺度(小时—月)。感受器不是变迟钝,是把新的平均值当成新的零点。这就是为什么慢性高血压病人"血压高但自己不觉得"——缓冲系统还在工作,只是围绕一个更高的点在跑。

这里必须把两个概念分清,很多人(包括一些综述)会混:

概念发生在哪时间尺度效果
时变增益 time-variant gain中枢(上位脑的指令)秒—分钟同一个压力变化换来更大或更小的反应
重调定 resetting感受器本身小时—月把"正常"的基准搬到新的平均压

考试里常问"高血压时压力感受性反射有何变化",标准答案是"重调定,工作点上移,反射仍在但围绕更高水平"。你要能补一句:它并没有被治愈,只是被接受了。

再补一个 教材 层面的概念。原文没有用这个词,但你在别处一定会遇到:滞回(hysteresis)——同样幅度的升压与降压,感受器放电并不对称,曲线会张开成一个环。这是所有带黏弹性的机械感受器的通病。原文没展开,我也只点到这儿,你不要拿它当这一页的主要论点。

七、非线性与"不总是有效"

三条非线性,从感受器一路排到效应器:

一、S 形曲线。压力与 RR 反应的关系是一条 sigmoid:有阈值、有饱和、中间一段近似线性。BRS 只是中间那段的斜率。临床含义很直接:血压掉到很低(比如大出血)时,曲线已经进入饱和,反射"再努力也没有余量";血压极高时同样饱和。所以"反射能救回来"只在一个有限区间内成立。你在动物实验里把血压压到 40 mmHg,看到的不是"反射更强",而是"反射已经到底"。

二、频率依赖。同一个平均压、同样幅度的波动,波动得快或慢换来的 RR 反应不一样,因为迷走快、交感慢,两条腿在不同频段的分工不同。所以"一次测出来的 BRS"必然依赖你用什么东西去扰动它。

三、随机共振。这一条最反直觉:给系统加一点噪声,它反而更容易检测到阈下的弱信号。原文引用的实验是用颈部的气动腔给颈动脉窦加少量噪声,结果反射对外部的阈下刺激(摆动的倾斜床)变得更敏感。

原文怎么说 · 噪声不总是坏事

“The presence of stochastic resonance in the baroreflex has been demonstrated by injecting a small amount of noise on carotid baroreceptors through a pneumatic neck chamber”

译:压力反射中存在随机共振现象,这一点已通过颈部气动腔向颈动脉压力感受器注入少量噪声得到证明。

不用现在就吃透随机共振。你只要记住它给实验的提醒:在非线性系统里,"噪声"可能是功能的一部分,你把它全部滤掉,信号未必更好。

然后是"有效性",值得单独说。健康人 24 小时里,自发的一次收缩压上升(ramp)后面,只有大约五分之一跟着出现反射性的 RR 变化。作者为这个比例造了一个指标:

原文怎么说 · 五分之一

“We found that in healthy humans, the 24 hours average BEI value was approximately 0.21, with a marked day–night modulation.”

译:我们发现,在健康人中,24 小时的平均 BEI 值约为 0.21,并呈明显的昼夜变化。

BEI(baroreflex effectiveness index)= 后面跟着反射性 RR 变化的收缩压 ramp 数 ÷ 该时间窗内全部收缩压 ramp 数。0.21 意味着:在体、清醒、活着的人身上,这条反射大部分时候并没有"接管"。为什么?中枢抑制、窦房结层面别的机制、其他反射在竞争。这个数字对做实验的人很有用:你刺激一下看到反射反应,不代表它平时也这么干。

干扰项列一下,都是原文点名的:中枢指令、体液因子、心肺反射、化学反射、肌肉代谢反射。还有一个很妙的:肌肉收缩或牵张时,肌肉传入纤维会提高颈动脉窦的阈值压力——等于在运动时"人为地"把反射调钝,好让血压升上去。这条和前面的"增益下调"是同一个目的的两套实现。

八、反直觉:某些慢振荡是它造的

这一段是这篇综述最有味道的地方,也最容易读错。

把猫的传入神经切断(SAD),看血压功率谱,会发现几条方向不同的结论同时成立:

  • 周期 30–1600 秒那一段,去神经后功率升高——说明完整动物身上反射在抑制这段波动。这是"缓冲"。
  • 周期长于 1600 秒那一段,去神经后功率下降——说明完整动物身上反射在放大这段波动。这是"助推"。
  • 0.1 Hz(10 秒节律)那一段,去神经后功率也下降——说明这个著名的"10 秒波"(Mayer 波)本身就来自反射环的延迟与共振。

原文怎么说 · 它不只是缓冲

“our data provided evidence of a significant BP power reduction for oscillations having a period longer than 1600 s, thus indicating that in intact animals the baroreflex does not buffer but rather paradoxically enhances the amplitude of these BP oscillations.”

译:我们的数据提供了证据:对于周期长于 1600 秒的振荡,血压功率显著降低;这说明在完整动物体内,压力反射并不缓冲,反而反常地增强这类血压振荡的幅度。

"振荡"在这里不是文学词,是 oscillation 在频谱上的具体一段。同一个反射,在不同频段上符号可以相反:低频段当阻尼器,超低频段当驱动器。你若只记住"缓冲"两个字,这一段会整个读反。

原文给的解释是"增益的时变调制":如果增益本身在 1/f 地漂移,输出谱就会带上 1/f 的形状;而 10 秒节律来自交感环路的延迟造成的共振。这部分是建模,不是直接测量——读的时候要分清"数据显示"和"模型解释"。

九、临床接口:体位性低血压与颈动脉窦综合征

原文第二段就把临床后果写清楚了,而且把"反射受损"的后果分成两个方向:

原文怎么说 · 受损之后

“leading to an increased BP variability, including sudden pressure drops on shifting from supine to standing position as well as aberrant pressure rises with a major risk of fatal events such as myocardial infarction and stroke”

译:导致血压变异性增大,包括从卧位转为站立时血压骤降,以及异常升压,并伴随心肌梗死、卒中等致命事件的重大风险。

两件事一起坏:站起时掉得太狠(低血压、晕厥、跌倒),以及该平稳时冲得太高(心血管事件)。注意原文说的是"变异性增大",不是"平均压更低"。这跟第四节的 SAD 结论是一条线。

体位性低血压。教材 站起来的一瞬间,血液积在下肢,静脉回流减少,每搏量下降,血压先掉一下;正常人靠反射在几秒内把它拉回来(心率升、外周阻力升)。反射通路任何一段出问题——压力感受器硬化(老年、糖尿病)、传入神经病变(糖尿病自主神经病变、淀粉样变)、中枢或传出(多系统萎缩)——都会让这一下拉不回来。所以"站起来头晕"不是一句闲话,它是一个可测的反射功能指标。

颈动脉窦综合征。教材 / 临床(本文没有涉及,我按教科书口径写,供你对照):颈动脉窦对机械压迫过度敏感,导致心脏抑制型(迷走张力骤增 → 心动过缓甚至停搏)、血管抑制型(交感张力骤降 → 血压下降)或混合型,表现为晕厥。诱因是转头、衣领过紧、剃须这类压迫动作。临床上用颈动脉窦按摩作为迷走反应的床边激发试验,同时要排除颈动脉斑块(有栓塞风险)。这一节请你以课上内容与诊断学教材为准;这里只提醒一件事:颈动脉窦既是生理学里的"压力表",也是临床上可以被按出心动过缓的一个点——同一个结构,两套语境。

另外两个原文里有的临床观察,可以一并记住:BRS 的昼夜调制在老年高血压者变钝、夜间血压下降减少;心肌梗死后患者血压–RR 耦合的线性度骤降。这两条都属于"反射功能是预后指标"这一类证据。

十、为什么血压不能只靠这个反射

现在把标题里的比喻拆掉。

第一,时间尺度不够。这个反射管秒到分钟。原文自己的结论是:它在秒到分的振荡里是主要角色,"小时以上"那一段它是否参与仍有争议;而且第八节的数据显示,超低频段它甚至可能是放大者。恒温器得管全天,它管不了。

第二,它会搬家。重调定意味着慢性高血压时,反射会把工作点搬到新的平均压上。你没法用一个会自己改零点的恒温器去纠正长期偏差——它已经认为那个偏差是正常。

第三,长期血压的账在别处。长期血压由肾脏对钠水的排出(压力-利尿曲线)、RAAS、醛固酮、长期交感张力、血管重塑共同决定。原文在结论里明说,为了篇幅它把这几块整套略过了:

原文怎么说 · 作者自陈漏了什么

“some important aspects of the baroreflex function have been completely omitted, such as the baroreflex control of peripheral resistance, the relationship between baroreflex and humoral factors, the influence of the baroreflex on renal function (and thus on the long-term pressure control by modulation of body fluids)”

译:压力反射功能的一些重要方面被完全省略了,例如压力反射对外周阻力的控制、压力反射与体液因子的关系,以及压力反射对肾功能(并因此通过调节体液实现长期血压控制)的影响。

这句"作者自陈"比任何教科书都值得读。它告诉你:手上这篇文献的边界在哪,以及要补长期血压这块该去读什么。这也是读综述的正确姿势——先看它说自己没讲什么。

所以准确的比喻是:压力感受性反射是一个装在主动脉上的减震器,不是恒温器。它把每一次血压的颠簸揉平,让器官不至于在脉冲里被冲坏;但房间的温度(长期平均压)由肾脏和体液那套系统调。减震器坏了,车会晃,但发动机的输出并没有变——这在生理学里对应"均值不变、波动爆炸"。

给刚进组的你

你现在的实验大概率是 WB 和动物饲养,短期不会碰血压。但这一页有三个东西你马上能用:

  1. 记录血压时必须写清"怎么测的"。鼠尾袖带(tail-cuff)是间断的,动物被抓取、加热、束缚都会应激升压;清醒自由活动动物的动脉插管或遥测才能拿到 beat-to-beat 的波形。两者的"血压"不是同一个量。记录本上请写:方法、是否麻醉、动物是否清醒、测了几次、取平均还是中位数、一天中的时间。
  2. 心率要写清是"平均心率"还是"RR 间期序列"。BRS 的定义是 RR 间期对血压的一阶导数(ms/mmHg)。没有同步的连续血压 + 连续 RR,就谈不上 BRS。你若在组会上说"心率变了 5 bpm",师姐会知道你还没读到这里。
  3. 影响 BRS 的实验条件要一起记:麻醉剂(多数麻醉药会抑制压力反射,这是"清醒 vs 麻醉"数据不能直接比的原因)、体温、呼吸频率与通气、血容量(禁食、脱水)、以及阿托品、β 阻滞剂、α 激动剂这类药。少记一项,数据就可能没法解释。

去组会可以问的三个问题,问完师姐会对你刮目相看:(1) 我们组测 BRS 用的是 sequence 法还是频谱法?两个数会有系统差。(2) 血压是点测还是连续记录?(3) 有没有同时记呼吸——呼吸会把 0.15–0.4 Hz 那一段污染掉,你不控它,频谱结果就是噪的。

最后一句不太客气的话:如果你在记录本上只写"血压正常",你记下的是你的心情,不是数据。


▲ 本篇注释(挂在英文术语上,对照学习用)

〔注1〕
原文
stretch receptors (baroreceptors)
直译
牵张感受器(压力感受器)
失味点
中文"压力感受器"会让你以为它在感受"压力"这个数值;英文写的却是 stretch(牵张)——它感受的是血管壁被拉开的机械形变。所以动脉硬化时,同一个血压对应的牵张变小,感受器放电变少,BRS 下降。这一层在中文词里完全看不出来。
学习提示
以后看到 baroreceptor,先在心里翻成"牵张感受器",再决定它在这个语境里代表什么。同类词还有 mechanoreceptor、stretch-activated channel,都以"形变"而不是"数值"为刺激。
〔注2〕
原文
carotid arteries / carotid sinus
直译
颈动脉(颈动脉窦)
失味点
原文只说"颈动脉壁",中文教材说的是"颈动脉窦"——特指颈总动脉分叉处、颈内动脉起始的那个膨大。sinus 在这里是"膨大、口袋",不是鼻窦那种空腔,也不是"窦房结"的窦。写作时若把 carotid sinus 写成 carotid artery wall,就丢掉了"局限在一个膨大部位"这层解剖精度,而颈动脉窦按摩、颈动脉窦综合征都依赖这个定位。
学习提示
这一条正好说明"原文用泛称、教材用专名"的差别:读文献时看到泛称,去教材里补专名;写论文时用专名,否则定位不清。
〔注3〕
原文
the rate of pressure changes
直译
压力变化速率
失味点
中文"对血压变化敏感"很容易被读成"对血压高低敏感",其实是两个不同的滤波器:一个看水平(静态),一个看导数(动态)。同一平均压下,波动越大放电越多。所以"脉压差大的人反射看起来更好"这件事,一半原因是动态敏感被算进了静态增益里。
学习提示
做 BRS 时若只用收缩压序列,你测的是混合量;想分离静态与动态,要靠颈部气动腔这类可控压力扰动实验。
〔注4〕
原文
carotid and aortic sites
直译
颈动脉与主动脉两处
失味点
中文说"两处感受器"听起来像双保险、互为备份。原文明确说两处传入放电不同、中枢整合"不完全清楚"。教材的补充口径是:主动脉弓阈值更高,通常在高压力段才被明显募集,所以它更像"高压段的报警器",而不是备份。
学习提示
做去神经实验时要知道 SAD 同时切了两路,还会顺带切掉同行的化学感受器纤维(见注 9)。
〔注5〕
原文
control centres located in the brain stem
直译
位于脑干的控制中枢
失味点
原文只写这个泛称。中文教材给的名字是孤束核(nucleus tractus solitarius, NTS)。你如果只搜 NTS,在这篇里找不到;只搜 brain stem,又会漏掉具体的核团链条。两种说法不是矛盾,是两套语言。
学习提示
把两边接起来背:窦神经 / 迷走 → NTS → CVLM(GABA 能)→ RVLM(交感前运动)→ 交感传出;另一支 NTS → 疑核 / 迷走背核 → 心迷走。
〔注6〕
原文
modulate autonomic outflow
直译
调制自主神经传出
失味点
outflow 强调"从中枢往外的指令流",中文常说"交感兴奋"或"迷走张力增高",方向感和"这是一条传出通路"的结构感都丢了。而且反射改的是传出,不是心脏或血管本身——效应器只是被动接受指令。
学习提示
说"反射引起心率下降"时,心里要补全四步:反射 → 心迷走传出↑ → 窦房结 M2 受体 → 心率↓。中间箭头少一个,机制题就扣分。
〔注7〕
原文
BRS(baroreflex sensitivity)
直译
压力反射敏感性
失味点
它不是一个"感觉灵敏度",是斜率:单位血压变化换来的 RR 间期变化(ms/mmHg)。中文"敏感性"三个字把"斜率、增益"这层数学意思抹掉了,所以很多人拿"心率变化了多少 bpm"当 BRS——单位都不对。
学习提示
记公式:BRS = ΔRRI / ΔSBP,RRI 是 RR 间期不是心率。算之前先确认你的血压和 RR 是同步的时间序列,且采样率够(beat-to-beat)。
〔注8〕
原文
reference set point
直译
参考设定点
失味点
中文"调定点"(set point)常被当成一个固定常数,像空调的 26 度。原文用的是 reference 修饰的 set point——一个"当前被参照"的工作点,它本身会被重调定改(见注 10)。考试答"调定点"没问题;写讨论时要知道这个"点"是变量。
学习提示
这是整页最容易被忽略的一层:你说"血压调定点上移",其实是在说"参考点搬家了",而不是"身体把正常值定高了"。
〔注9〕
原文
denervation(sinoaortic denervation, SAD)
直译
去神经(去窦主动脉神经)
失味点
SAD 不是"只切压力感受器"——它切的是这一束传入纤维,里面同时有化学感受器的纤维;不同物种这束纤维的成分也不同。原文特意列了三条解释结果的注意事项:可能同时切断其他感受器、动物到人的外推要谨慎、长期去神经后其他机制会代偿。
学习提示
看到任何 denervation 实验,先问三件事:切了什么、切完多久测的、剩下的系统有没有代偿。原文这三条都写了,抄下来就是一段合格的 limitations。
〔注10〕
原文
update their operating point to the new average level of stimulation
直译
把工作点更新到新的平均刺激水平
失味点
中文"适应"太软,听起来像"习惯了";这里是一个可测的位移:压力–放电曲线整体沿压力轴平移。而且时间尺度是小时到月,不是秒。你若在急性实验(几小时)里没看到重调定,那很正常。
学习提示
记两个词:operating point(工作点)对 resetting,gain(增益)对 time-variant。考试问"慢性高血压时压力反射改变",答"重调定 + 增益变化"两句都占,才完整。
〔注11〕
原文
BEI(baroreflex effectiveness index)
直译
压力反射有效性指数
失味点
"有效性"容易被读成"效率、增益"。它数的是事件:多少次血压上升后面真的跟了 RR 变化,是一个计数比例,不是幅度。0.21 与 BRS 高低是两件独立的事。
学习提示
一个反射可以"增益很高但很少被触发"(BEI 低),也可以"增益一般但每次都被触发"。这两个维度分开想,你读自主神经文献会顺很多。
〔注12〕
原文
paradoxically enhances(the amplitude of these BP oscillations)
直译
反常地增强(这些血压振荡的幅度)
失味点
中文"缓冲"是一个功能标签,读者会默认它对所有频率都是阻尼。这句话说的正是反例:某个频段它起放大作用,所以作者自己用了 paradoxically(反常地)——他知道这违反直觉。
学习提示
读频谱类文献先问"这段频率是谁在驱动"。同一个系统在不同频段可以符号相反,这是"振荡"(oscillation)这个词在这篇里出现了二十多次的原因。
〔注13〕
原文
renal function(and thus on the long-term pressure control by modulation of body fluids)
直译
肾功能(并因此通过调节体液实现长期血压控制)
失味点
中文"肾功能"在生理学语境里几乎等于"排尿",但这里指的是压力–利尿(pressure natriuresis)那套长期血压调节:血压升高 → 排钠排水增加 → 血容量下降 → 血压回落。这是长期血压真正的"恒温器",也是这页标题那个比喻该让位的地方。
学习提示
这一句是作者自陈边界。沿着它去查 pressure natriuresis 与肾–体液反馈,你就走出了压力反射这个小圈子——这也是考研生理学里"长期血压调节"那道大题的标准落点。

附录 · 英文原文

以下为未经改动的英文原文(来源:Europe PMC 开放获取全文,PMC2635500)。这不是朱涵老师的论文;它是本页中文精讲所选用的英文对照文献。原文:Di Rienzo M, Parati G, Radaelli A, Castiglioni P. Baroreflex contribution to blood pressure and heart rate oscillations: time scales, time-variant characteristics and nonlinearities. Phil Trans R Soc A. 2009;367(1892):1301. doi:10.1098/rsta.2008.0274。

Baroreflex contribution to blood pressure and heart rate oscillations: time scales, time-variant characteristics and nonlinearities

Journal: 2009;367(1892):1301  |  DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2008.0274  |  PMID: 19324710  |  PMCID:

Authors: M Di Rienzo; G Parati; A Radaelli; P Castiglioni

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to highlight the aspects of the baroreflex control of the cardiovascular system that could be relevant to the analysis and modelling of cardiovascular oscillations and regulation. In particular, complex and/or controversial issues of the baroreflex control are addressed on the basis of results obtained in previous studies by others as well as by our group. Attention has been focused on time-variant and nonlinear characteristics of the baroreflex function and on the influence of this physiological mechanism on different frequency regions of blood pressure and heart rate spectra.

Keywords: arterial baroreflex, cardiovascular control, heart rate variability, blood pressure variability

1. Introduction

Over the centuries, the understanding of the oscillations of cardiovascular parameters (blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), blood flow, heart contractility, etc.) has been a puzzling issue for philosophers, clinicians and researchers. The knowledge of the mechanisms producing these oscillations is not only relevant for a better comprehension of human physiology but it may also have a major clinical impact. Indeed, for BP, it is known that an excessive variability represents a major risk factor for the occurrence of fatal events ([Tozawa]; [Mancia & Parati 2003]). On the contrary, for HR it is the reduced variability that represents a bad prognostic sign since it has been associated with a dysfunction of the autonomic mechanisms controlling the heart ([Eckberg]; [Wolf]; [Bigger]).

Variability of cardiovascular signals is actually due to a summation of regular rhythms and irregular fluctuations with different time scales. While it is apparent that the fastest rhythm is due to the heart contraction, the origin of the slower fluctuations may be related to a variety of factors, including neural and humoral mechanisms.

The arterial baroreflex, in its role of BP regulator, is a major player in the production of BP and HR oscillations with periods from seconds to minutes. Its involvement in the production of oscillations having periods of the order of hours or longer is still debated ([Barrett & Malpas 2005]; [Thrasher 2005]).

The aim of this paper is to highlight, in a schematic way, the aspects of the baroreflex control that could be relevant to the analysis and modelling of cardiovascular oscillations and regulation.

In particular, some complex and/or controversial issues of the baroreflex control have been addressed on the basis of available literature and the results obtained in previous studies by our group. Attention has been focused on time-variant and nonlinear characteristics of the baroreflex function and on the influence of this control mechanism on different frequency regions of BP and HR spectra.

2. The baroreflex function

The ultimate goal of the arterial baroreflex is to maintain BP homeostasis. This reflex mechanism counteracts deviations of BP from a reference set point by modulating HR, peripheral vascular tone and other cardiovascular variables through autonomic paths. BP information is sensed by stretch receptors (baroreceptors) mainly located on the wall of carotid arteries and aorta. When a BP change occurs, a modification in the dilation of arterial walls is sensed by these receptors and information is sent to control centres located in the brain stem through afferent neural fibres. These centres process the baroreceptor inputs and modulate autonomic outflow so as to produce changes in the cardiovascular variables (mainly HR, heart contractility and vasoconstriction) required to guarantee a proper control of BP.

Owing to its primary role in cardiovascular control, an impairment of the baroreflex may result in a significant dysregulation of BP, leading to an increased BP variability, including sudden pressure drops on shifting from supine to standing position as well as aberrant pressure rises with a major risk of fatal events such as myocardial infarction and stroke.

Although the most effective limb of the baroreflex cardiovascular control is the regulation of peripheral resistance (obtained by an efferent sympathetic modulation of the lumen of the arterioles), the overall efficiency of the baroreflex is commonly inferred from the evaluation of the baroreflex control of HR, because of its simpler assessment. In the following sections, only this limb of the baroreflex function will be considered.

A large number of techniques have been developed for the assessment of baroreflex function in a laboratory setting and in daily life. A description of these techniques is beyond the scope of this paper, but comprehensive reviews on this topic can be found in [Parati] and [Laude].

(a) Complexity in the baroreflex control of cardiovascular system

Baroreflex control of circulation is actually a complex physiological function characterized by time-variant properties and nonlinear features.

A major time-variant property refers to the gain of the baroreflex control ([Smith]; [Eckberg 1977]). Indeed, it has been repeatedly reported that the magnitude of this parameter is continuously modulated over time as a result of central influences (commands from higher brain centres) aimed at optimizing the response of the cardiovascular system to the daily life challenges ([Parati]). For instance, during physical exercise, BP is physiologically requested to rise from its reference level in order to facilitate perfusion of muscular districts. Given the intrinsic high efficiency of the baroreflex, this pressure rise can be obtained only through a reduction in the baroreflex gain. Indeed, should the baroreflex gain remain stable at its maximal value, no pressure increase would be allowed ([Wesseling & Settels 1985]).

As will be discussed in, the time modulation of the gain of the baroreflex may be a determinant of long-term BP changes.

Examples of modulation of the gain of the baroreflex control of HR, hereafter also termed cardiac baroreflex sensitivity (BRS), are shown in (in response to a series of different physical challenges) and in (during 24 hour spontaneous behaviour). BRS is defined as the change in the RR interval (RRI, the reciprocal of HR, measured as the time interval between consecutive R peaks of the electrocardiogram) following a unitary change in BP and is expressed in ms mm Hg−1. From it appears that BRS values not only depend on the different physiological conditions, but are also characterized by an ‘intrinsic’ fast variability occurring within each condition. At the moment, it is not known whether this is a true physiological phenomenon or whether it represents noise introduced by the techniques used for estimating BRS. This is an intriguing aspect of baroreflex function of interest for future research.

[Figure 1] Time modulation of BRS in a subject while undergoing a series of different activities. BRS was estimated by the sequence technique. Adapted from [Di Rienzo].

[Figure 2] The 24 hours profile of BRS as estimated by the sequence technique in a group of young (n=8; filled circles) and elderly subjects (n=8; open circles). Inset: average SBP values observed during day and night for the two groups of subjects (stippled bars, day; left-hatched bars, night). *p<0.05. Adapted from [Parati].

The baroreflex control of circulation is also characterized by several nonlinear features. The first nonlinear characteristic refers to the sensing mechanism through which the baroreceptors detect arterial pressure. As mentioned earlier, baroreceptors are stretch sensors and are located over elastic tissues (the arterial walls). Thus, the relationship between BP and baroreceptor stimulation is largely nonlinear. Moreover, the baroreceptors are differently sensitive to steady BP levels and to the rate of pressure changes with an increase in the firing rate in correspondence with pressure rises ([Landgren 1952]; [Karemaker & Wesseling 2008]). Finally, differences have been observed between the neural afferent outflow of the baroreceptors located at the carotid and aortic sites. How information stemming from these two families of baroreceptors is integrated at the central level is not entirely clear, although evidence of nonlinear interactions has been produced ([Brunner]; [Bertinieri]).

Also the relationship between the reflex RRI value changes produced by the baroreflex in response to different BP values is nonlinear. Indeed, this relationship can be usually represented by a sigmoidal curve and includes a threshold, a saturation point and, in between, a linear zone (). Only BP variations occurring in the central linear part of the sigmoid curve produce a marked reflex RRI response, while comparable changes occurring at both the extremes of the curve produce only a more limited RRI response ([Mancia & Mark 1983]). For any stable BP value, the gain (BRS) is estimated as the slope at that value on the sigmoid curve. It should be recalled, however, that if BP fluctuates, BRS may change as a function of the frequency of the BP oscillation ([Parati]).

[Figure 3] Schematic of different features of the gain of the baroreflex control of HR. (a,b) Static (steady-state) gain, (c,d) dynamic gain. (a) Sigmoidal curve describing the relationship between static BP values and the reflex RRI responses. (b) Gain (estimated as the local slope of the sigmoidal curve) versus static BP values. (c) Changes in the slope of the sigmoidal curve as a function of the BP frequency. (d) Example of change in the baroreflex gain as a function of the BP frequency at a given BP average value. Adapted from [Parati].

More recently, experimental data have suggested that the baroreflex function may also be influenced by a stochastic resonance phenomenon ([Hidaka]; [Soma]). Stochastic resonance is a phenomenon that occurs in nonlinear systems and which allows the system to improve its capability to detect small signals, when a limited amount of noise is added. It may occur in physiological systems with a sensory threshold. In this case, the addition of a moderate amount of noise to a subthreshold input signal allows the signal to cross the detection threshold. In neurosciences, this phenomenon was observed in a variety of neuronal systems for the transmission of weak signals. The presence of stochastic resonance in the baroreflex has been demonstrated by injecting a small amount of noise on carotid baroreceptors through a pneumatic neck chamber and by observing an augmented sensitivity of the baroreflex response to an external subthreshold stimulus obtained by an oscillating tilt table ([Hidaka]).

Another aspect making the baroreflex physiology complex is the resetting phenomenon ([McCubbin]; [Seagard]). Similar to other biological receptors, baroreceptors also tend to reduce their firing rate and update their operating point to the new average level of stimulation when subjected to a sustained stimulation for a long period (hours, days and months). It has been suggested that this phenomenon may play a role in the occurrence of hypertension ([Krieger 1986]). A review on this topic may be found in [Thrasher (2005)].

Finally, it should be considered that the baroreflex control of cardiovascular variables aimed at counteracting BP changes is not always completely effective. Indeed, these cardiovascular variables are also under the influence of other reflexes or mechanisms, which may partially or totally mask, contrast, counteract the baroreflex drive (e.g. central influences, humoral factors, cardiopulmonary reflex, chemoreflex, metaboreflex; [Somers]; [Du & Chen 2007]; [Iellamo]) or may additively contribute to the baroreflex output (e.g. [Ray 2000]; [Di Rienzo]). Peripheral somatosensory inputs have also been suggested to influence the baroreflex function. Indeed, it was reported that activation of skeletal muscle afferent fibres, by either muscle contraction or stretch, may increase the carotid sinus threshold pressure of the baroreceptors, so as to limit the baroreflex efficiency and facilitate the BP and HR rise required by physical exercise ([Mancia]; [Potts & Mitchell 1998]).

The presence of interferences on the baroreflex control of HR can be simply verified by observing that, in healthy subjects, spontaneous and progressive beat-to-beat increases or decreases (ramps) in systolic blood pressure (SBP) are not always accompanied by the expected baroreflex-driven lengthening or shortening in RRI. In order to quantify this phenomenon, we previously proposed a specific index, the baroreflex effectiveness index (BEI), defined as the ratio between the number of spontaneous SBP ramps followed by a reflex RRI change and the total number of SBP ramps observed in a given time window ([Di Rienzo]). We found that in healthy humans, the 24 hours average BEI value was approximately 0.21, with a marked day–night modulation. These data suggest that in normal subjects, arterial baroreflex is effective in producing reflex RRI changes in response to only a fraction of all SBP ramps, possibly because of central inhibitory influences or interferences at sinus node level by non-baroreflex mechanisms.

(b) Models of the baroreflex

In the last few decades, a large number of mathematical models have been proposed to better clarify the functioning of the baroreflex and its interactions with other control mechanisms. Differences among the proposed models concern the approach used (black box or based on physiological descriptions), how the aspects of the control are simulated, the level of details by which nonlinearities are modelled, the type of variables considered (continuous or pulsatile variables), and the capability to include specific features of real cardiovascular dynamics, such as respiratory entrainment, the 10 s rhythm or long-term BP fluctuations.

The first mathematical models of the baroreflex were based on detailed physiological descriptions of the heart and vasculature ([Beneken & De Wit 1967]; [Guyton]); however, they were unable to reproduce specific features of cardiovascular dynamics, such as the spontaneous variability of HR and BP. A significant step forward in this direction was represented by the model proposed by [Hyndman], which could simulate the genesis of a spontaneous 10 s rhythm in BP by including a nonlinear element followed by a time delay in the baroreflex feedback. This baroreflex model was further developed to explain also the phenomenon of entrainment between respiratory sinus arrhythmia and the 10 s rhythm ([Kitney 1979]). The concept of a nonlinear element with a delay in the baroreflex feedback was refined and deeply analysed in other studies to obtain simulations more similar to real signals ([Cavalcanti & Belardinelli 1996]; [Ringwood & Malpas 2001]).

A different approach was followed by [Wesseling & Settels (1985)], which proposed a model to explain the so-called ‘baroreflex paradox’, i.e. how large BP oscillations can occur in real life in spite of the fast and efficient action of the baroreflex. As mentioned earlier, the paradox can be explained by considering the modulation of the baroreflex gain: when BP is requested to increase, central influences reduce BRS and thus the efficiency of the baroreflex control. On this premise, the authors postulated that also very low BP fluctuations can be explained by a proper modulation of the baroreflex gain, in their model simulated by ‘1/f’ noise. They could also simulate a 10 s rhythm as a resonance owing to the delay in peripheral resistances. Their model was not aimed at considering the pulsatile nature of arterial pressure, and continuous variables were used.

By contrast, the simulations of the beat-by-beat relationships between cardiovascular variables (heart interval, systolic and diastolic BPs) were the aim of the model proposed by [De Boer]. This model was based on a system of differential equations representing the baroreflex control on HR and peripheral resistance, the Windkessel properties of the arterial tree, the contractile properties of the myocardium and the effects of respiration on BP. Also in this model, the 10 s rhythm was explained as a resonance due to a delay in the sympathetic loop. The accurate simulation of the relationships between beat-by-beat variables was also the aim of a model proposed by [TenVoorde & Kingma (2000)]. This model consisted of a beat-to-beat haemodynamic part linked to a continuous-modelled neural control part: the link between continuous and beat-to-beat components was obtained through an integral pulse frequency modulator block acting as cardiac pacemaker, and driven by sympathetic and vagal outflows.

A model of the baroreflex was also proposed by [Seidel & Herzel (1998)]. Their focus was on simulating, through a set of differential equations, the nonlinear coupling between the cardiac pacemaker and the baroreflex control loop and the interactions among the pulse oscillation, respiration and Mayer waves. Their nonlinear model explained the genesis of sustained oscillations induced by sympathetic delays in terms of a Hopf bifurcation, and the occurrence of more complex rhythms, including entrainment and chaotic dynamics, following increases in BRS.

Other models have been proposed to specifically investigate the BP–RRI closed-loop relationship as a function of the baroreflex control during spontaneous behaviour ([Appel]; [Baselli]; [Patton]; [Wang & Chon 2007]). These models aim at disentangling the crucial issue of causality between BP and RRI, i.e. they try to determine how much of the link between these variables is owing to (i) the direct action of BP on RRI (through the baroreflex), (ii) the feed-forward mechanical action of RRI on BP (through the change in cardiac output) or (iii) the possible factors that simultaneously influence BP and RRI (e.g. central drives, respiration, the baroreflex itself that simultaneously controls peripheral resistances and RRI). Actually, most of the approaches currently used for the analysis of spontaneous BP–RRI interactions (including coherence analysis and most of the techniques for the assessment of spontaneous BRS) are based on an open-loop description of the BP–RRI relationship and do not consider causality. It has been suggested that these common but simplistic approaches disregard most physiological influences and tend to attribute all observed BP and RRI changes solely to the arterial baroreflex (Porta et al. [2000], [2002]).

Models taking into account causality have proven to be able to provide insights into cardiovascular control ([Nollo]). However, further studies are still required to fully understand the potentiality of this approach and make it applicable in clinical practice. Further details on causality may be found in the papers by [Batzel] and [Nollo] published in this issue of the Philosophical Transactions A.

(c) Time scales of the baroreflex action on HR and BP variability

After having considered nonlinearities, resetting phenomena and interactions from other mechanisms, one might wonder what is the real zone of influence of the baroreflex on HR variability (HRV) and BP variability (BPV) or, in other words, what is the real time scale of the baroreflex control action.

In this regard, a large number of studies have been performed on humans and animals to investigate the baroreflex effects on HR and BP oscillations with periods from seconds to minutes. The baroreflex effects on the slowest components of variability (tens of minutes, hours and days) have been much less frequently addressed and most of the studies in this area were based on the analysis of the long-term effects on BPV and HRV of surgical baroreceptor denervation in animals. This experimental procedure, often termed sinoaortic denervation (SAD), is based on the surgical severing of the afferent neural fibres stemming from the baroreceptors in the carotid and aortic areas. In practice, SAD opens the baroreflex loop. Experiments based on SAD provide a deep insight into the cardiovascular control, but three aspects need to be considered for a correct interpretation of results. First, in different animal species, it is possible that the same afferent neural fibres conveying baroreceptor information also convey information provided by other receptors, e.g. chemoreceptors. The surgical procedure would thus cut all these connections simultaneously. Second, the extrapolation of animal data to human baroreflex control patterns should be done with caution, by taking into account the physiological differences between humans and the various animal species. Third, when the focus is on long-term effects of denervation, it should be considered that after a while other control mechanisms may intervene to vicariate baroreflex control. In this view, the net difference in BPV and HRV between what is observed in intact condition and a long period after the removal of the baroreflex action (by denervation) might be indicative not only of the baroreflex action but also of the effects of other mechanisms possibly intervening after SAD.

(d) Baroreflex versus BPV: ultra-low frequencies (hours and days)

The effect of baroreflex on BP oscillations with periods of hours and days is still a matter of debate with controversial findings and unexplored issues. Moreover, differences in the animal species investigated, the experimental procedure applied and the techniques used for data analysis make it difficult to put all results in a coherent framework.

In this section we will try to briefly summarize some of the key points in this area. The pioneering study in this field was by [Cowley]. In this study, BPV was investigated in dogs before and several days after SAD. Data analysis showed that after denervation BP mean value was only minimally increased while fast BPV dramatically increased in response to postural changes and physical activity. From these results, it was concluded that the baroreflex has no influence on the long-term component of BP (as reflected by the invariance in mean value) while it plays a role in buffering the fastest components of BPV (as estimated by the increased standard deviation after denervation).

Over time, other studies addressed this issue through experiments in animals. The results were diverse and in some cases it was concluded in favour of ([Thrasher 2002]; [Lohmeier]) and in other cases against (see review in [Cowley 1992]) the hypothesis of a baroreflex involvement in the genesis of the slowest components of BPV.

Our group previously investigated this issue by evaluating the spectral changes in BPV and HRV observed in unanaesthetized cats before and 7–10 days after SAD (Di Rienzo et al. [1991], [1996]). Each data recording lasted more than 3 hours and a single broadband spectrum was estimated from the whole recording in order to evaluate the power of systolic and diastolic BP and of heart rhythm oscillations with periods from approximately 1 s to 3 hours. In this study, the heart rhythm was estimated by the pulse interval, PI, i.e. the time distance between two consecutive systolic BP peaks. The average SBP and PI broadband spectra for the animals in intact and after SAD condition are illustrated in. It is apparent that all SBP spectral components are actually modified by denervation, with differentiated effects over the frequency axis, including frequency regions where the removal of baroreflex function produced a power increase (thus indicating a baroreflex buffering action before SAD) and regions where the spectral power was reduced (indicating a baroreflex pro-oscillatory action before SAD).

[Figure 4] Average broadband power spectra of (a) SBP and (b) PI in a group of eight cats before (thick line) and after (thin line) SAD. Adapted from [Di Rienzo].

In particular, as far as the ultra-low frequencies are concerned, our data provided evidence of a significant BP power reduction for oscillations having a period longer than 1600 s, thus indicating that in intact animals the baroreflex does not buffer but rather paradoxically enhances the amplitude of these BP oscillations.

The disappearance of these ultra-low fluctuations of BP after SAD is also apparent by a visual inspection of the BP recordings before and after denervation ().

[Figure 5] Beat-by-beat time profile of systolic and diastolic BP from a cat (a) before and (b) after SAD. Adapted from [Castiglioni (1993)].

As mentioned above, it has been suggested that one of the mechanisms through which the baroreflex might influence ultra-low components of BPV is the change in the baroreflex gain over time. With the support of a mathematical model, Wesseling & Settels ([1985]; see) suggested that not only ultra-low frequency spectral components of BPV, but also, more generally, the complete 1/f trend of BP spectra may be obtained by a proper modulation of the baroreflex gain. Experimental data collected by our group in a previous study indicate that the 1/f trend in the BP spectra estimated in humans over the 24 hours is actually accompanied by 1/f spectra of the baroreflex gain ([Di Rienzo]). In this perspective, the baroreflex might provide a contribution also in the day–night BP modulation. Indeed, it has been shown that in young healthy subjects the baroreflex gain is lower during the day and higher at night () and the increased efficiency of the baroreflex control at night might explain the nocturnal BP reduction. The hypothesis is corroborated by the fact that in elderly hypertensive subjects the day–night BRS modulation is blunted and the nocturnal BP drop is importantly reduced ([Parati]).

(e) Baroreflex versus BPV: very low frequencies

[Persson] reported that in dogs the power of BP fluctuations with a period of approximately 1200 s was significantly increased after SAD. Our broadband analysis of data in cats () not only confirmed this finding but also showed that after denervation SBP and DBP power significantly increases over a wide frequency band between 0.03 Hz and 6×10−4 Hz, thus including oscillations with periods from 30 to 1600 s. These data indicate that in this region an intact baroreflex exerts its buffering function on BPV, possibly through adrenergic mechanisms ([Radaelli]). It may be worth noting that this region roughly includes the very low-frequency region, as traditionally defined in HRV studies (0.003–0.04 Hz; [Task Force 1996]).

In the above mentioned cats, the effects of SAD on the SBP–PI coherence was also evaluated ([Di Rienzo]). As shown in, the opening of the baroreflex produces an increase in the squared coherence modulus at frequencies lower than 0.01 Hz. Since the squared coherence modulus quantifies the strength of the linear coupling between variables, these data may suggest that in this frequency region the buffering action of the baroreflex (demonstrated by power spectral analysis) is exerted through nonlinear strategies. This might be explained by considering that at variance from the faster frequencies where the baroreflex controls only HR, in this frequency region it also directly controls BP through a modulation of peripheral resistances. Since HR and peripheral resistance controls are characterized by specific nonlinearities and time constants ([Mancia & Mark 1983]), their simultaneous activation might be the cause of the observed reduction in the linear link between variables. After SAD, the baroreflex influence is removed and the mechanical feed-forward PI–SBP link prevails thus increasing the linearity of their relationship.

[Figure 6] Mean squared coherence modulus between systolic BP and PI for the group of eight cats before and after SAD. Adapted from [Di Rienzo].

(f) Baroreflex versus BPV: low frequency

The low frequency (LF) band is usually defined as the region including fluctuations from 0.04 to 0.15 Hz. The main component of this frequency region is the 10 s oscillation. Concerning the genesis of this rhythm in BP, the prevalent hypothesis is that it is caused by vasomotion phenomena induced by a resonance occurring in the baroreflex loop and mediated by the sympathetic drive to the vessels ([Guyton & Harris 1951]; [De Boer]; [Julien 2006]). In other words, it is the intrinsic structure of the baroreflex loop that would produce the ‘10 s’ oscillation in BP. This hypothesis is supported by our data in cats. Indeed, as shown in, the power near to 0.1 Hz significantly decreased in denervated animals ([Di Rienzo]; [Mancia]).

(g) Baroreflex versus BPV: high frequency

The high frequency (HF) region includes frequencies from 0.15 to 0.4 Hz and thus also the respiratory-driven BP oscillation (if the respiratory frequency remains within the normal limits). According to the prevalent hypothesis, respiratory activity directly influences BP through changes in the intra-thoracic pressure that in turn modify venous return and thus atrial filling ([Dornhorst]; [De Boer]; [Sleight]). In agreement with this reasoning, actually we did not observe any change in the high-frequency BP power after denervation (). However, as described in, the baroreflex senses the BP respiratory oscillation and modulates RRI accordingly. Thus, the observed invariance of the BP power after denervation not only indicates that the baroreflex is not involved in the genesis of this oscillation, but also that the baroreflex modulation of HR is ineffective in buffering HF BP oscillations ([Mancia]).

The mechanical hypothesis of the respiratory oscillation of BP is supported also by the experimental evidence that when the baroreflex is deactivated, for example after brain death, high-frequency respiratory oscillations induced by the mechanical ventilator are still present in BP, while they virtually disappear in HR ([Conci]).

(h) Baroreflex versus HR variability

In our denervated cats, removal of the baroreflex function resulted in a significant drastic reduction in HR power over the whole frequency range addressed in our study, i.e. from seconds to hours (b).

Some further consideration can be made by comparing this result with the effects of denervation on BPV. In particular, the drastic HR power reduction at 0.1 Hz after SAD supports the hypothesis that most of the power in this band observed in physiological condition is actually due to the attempt of the baroreflex to buffer the BP oscillation occurring at the same frequency and possibly caused by a resonance phenomenon as mentioned earlier ([Julien 2006]).

This is also supported by the observation of [Radaelli] showing that in heart failure patients, an increase in LF oscillations of HR was concomitant with an improvement in BRS. Moreover, in paraplegic subjects with a spinal lesion below the fifth thoracic vertebra (i.e. with intact vagal outflows to the heart but impaired sympathetic heart control) a reduction in the LF power of HR was shown ([Castiglioni]).

These findings do not exclude the possibility of a minor contribution from a direct drive on HR from central oscillators as suggested by some authors ([Montano]).

In addition, the observed important HR power reduction in the respiratory frequency band after SAD provides evidence of the major role played by the baroreflex also in the production of the respiratory sinus arrhythmia. It is worth noting, however, that a small HR spectral peak still survives denervation, supporting the hypothesis of a minor direct influence on the sinus node of the respiratory-induced changes in right atrium filling. This hypothesis is in line with the observed presence of small but clear HR power peaks at the respiratory frequency in heart transplant patients ([Bernardi]). The transplanted heart is denervated and thus the only reasonable mechanism for explaining the residual HF peak is the direct influence of venous return to the sinus node.

In healthy subjects, it has been suggested that a contribution to the total respiratory sinus arrhythmia may also derive from a direct central drive ([Eckberg & Karemaker in press]).

3. What is the baroreflex influence on nonlinearities in the BP–RRI interaction?

While the baroreflex function is rich in nonlinearities, the nonlinear behaviour of the BP–RRI interaction cannot be taken for granted. Indeed, experimental data have shown that when an overall analysis of the BP–RRI coupling is performed by the corrected cross-conditional entropy on a time scale of minutes, a prevalence of linear components is observed in healthy subjects at rest. The overall level of linearity in the BP–RRI coupling further increases during tilt, but drastically drops in patients after myocardial infarction ([Nollo]). Similarly, an overall linearity was observed by applying a nonlinear vector autoregressive model ([Wang & Chon 2007]). However, this is not to say that BP and RRI are invariably linearly linked over all frequencies. Indeed, as mentioned earlier in relation with the data illustrated in, there is a frequency region at approximately 0.01 Hz where the baroreflex is active and exerts a link between BP and RRI, but the coherence analysis suggests that such a link could be nonlinear. This is an additional puzzling aspect of the baroreflex control worthy to be further explored.

4. Conclusions

An increasing number of studies emphasize the importance of the assessment of arterial baroreflex function for diagnostic and prognostic purposes. This has fuelled a growing interest in the study of this control mechanism, the development of new techniques for the evaluation of its efficiency and the design of new interpretative models aimed at clarifying unclear aspects of its control function. With this paper, we aimed at contributing to these demanding tasks, by sharing our experience and providing a schematic overview of the most important aspects of the baroreflex control.

Since a huge amount of data exist on the baroreflex physiology, we had to drastically limit the number of issues addressed in this paper and the depth of description for each issue. For space reasons, some important aspects of the baroreflex function have been completely omitted, such as the baroreflex control of peripheral resistance, the relationship between baroreflex and humoral factors, the influence of the baroreflex on renal function (and thus on the long-term pressure control by modulation of body fluids) and possible influences by genetic factors.

Moreover, when addressing topics that are still a matter of debate, we have been forced to illustrate only the prevalent hypotheses. In such cases, however, we provided bibliographic references for the reader interested in deepening his/her knowledge on the matter.

On specific topics, we also illustrated the data coming from our own work. We do hope that this mix of literature and personal experience might be of interest to scientists involved in the analysis of cardiovascular control and might foster further research in this area. Actually, the data summarized in our paper highlight a large number of issues that are still unclear and that deserve to be addressed in more depth in future studies. Among them, we mention the need for further investigations on the time scale of the baroreceptor resetting phenomenon, the interaction between baroreflex and other control mechanisms, the ‘intrinsic BRS variability’ observed also when a subject is in a steady-state condition, how baroreflex nonlinearities are reflected in nonlinearities in the BP and RRI signals, and the development of new approaches to investigate the baroreflex function by considering causality in the BP–RRI interaction.

Another area of future research concerns the development of new methods for the assessment of spontaneous baroreflex control of peripheral resistances. Indeed, at the moment, research on this important part of the baroreflex physiology is limited by the complexity of the available techniques that allow us to address this issue mainly in a laboratory setting, through the application of external stimuli to baroreceptor areas (via a neck chamber device). The few model-based approaches so far developed (e.g. [Mukkamala]) provided positive preliminary results and foster further research in this field.

Footnotes

References