Computational and physiological background of the baroreflex sensitivity

Diagnostic significance of a mild decrease of baroreflex sensitivity with respect to heart rate in type 1 diabetes mellitus

Decreased baroreflex sensitivity is an early sign of autonomic dysfunction in patients with type-1 diabetes mellitus. We evaluated the repeatability of a mild baroreflex sensitivity decrease in diabetics with respect to their heart rate. Finger blood pressure was continuously recorded in 14 young diabetics without clinical signs of autonomic dysfunction and in 14 age-matched controls for 42 min. The recordings were divided into 3-min segments, and the mean inter-beat interval (IBI), baroreflex sensitivity in ms/mm Hg (BRS) and mHz/mm Hg (BRSf) were determined in each segment. These values fluctuated in each subject within 42 min and therefore coefficients of repeatability were calculated for all subjects. Diabetics compared with controls had a decreased mean BRS (p=0.05), a tendency to a shortened IBI (p=0.08), and a decreased BRSf (p=0.17). IBI correlated with BRS in diabetics (p=0.03); this correlation was at p=0.12 in the controls. BRSf was IBI independent (controls: p=0.81, diabetics: p=0.29). We conclude that BRS is partially dependent on mean IBI. Thus, BRS reflects not only an impairment of the quick baroreflex responses of IBI to blood pressure changes, but also a change of the tonic sympathetic and parasympathetic heart rate control. This is of significance during mild changes of BRS. Therefore, an examination of the BRSf index is highly recommended, because this examination improves the diagnostic value of the measurement, particularly in cases of early signs of autonomic dysfunction.

Postural influences on the mechanical and neural components of the cardiovagal baroreflex

AIM

The ability to maintain arterial blood pressure when faced with a postural challenge has implications for the occurrence of syncope and falls. It has been suggested that posture-induced declines in the mechanical component of the baroreflex response drive reductions in cardiovagal baroreflex sensitivity associated with postural stress. However, these conclusions are largely based upon spontaneous methods of baroreflex assessment, the accuracy of which has been questioned. Therefore, the aim was to engage a partially open-loop approach to explore the influence of posture on the mechanical and neural components of the baroreflex.

METHODS

In nine healthy participants, we measured continuous blood pressure, heart rate, RR interval and carotid artery diameter during supine and standing postures. The modified Oxford method was used to quantify baroreflex sensitivity.

RESULTS

In response to falling pressures, baroreflex sensitivity was similar between postures (P = 0.798). In response to rising pressures, there was an attenuated (P = 0.042) baroreflex sensitivity (mean ± SE) in the standing position (-0.70 ± 0.11 beats min(-1) mmHg(-1)) compared with supine (-0.83 ± 0.06 beats min(-1) mmHg(-1)). This was explained by a diminished (P = 0.016) neural component whilst standing (-30.17 ± 4.16 beats min(-1) mm(-1)) compared with supine (-38.23 ± 3.31 beats min(-1) mm(-1)). These effects were consistent when baroreflex sensitivity was determined using RR interval.

CONCLUSION

Cardiovagal baroreflex sensitivity in response to rising pressures is reduced in young individuals during postural stress. Our data suggest that the mechanical component is unaffected by standing, and the reduction in baroreflex sensitivity is driven by the neural component.