Variability in the magnitude of the cerebral blood flow response and the shape of the cerebral blood flow-pressure autoregulation curve during hypotension in normal rats [corrected]

Abstract

Background: The maintenance of constant cerebral blood flow (CBF) as mean cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) varies is commonly referred to as CBF-pressure autoregulation. The lower limit of autoregulation is the CPP at which the vasodilatory capacity is exhausted and flow falls with pressure. We evaluated variability in the magnitude of percent change in CBF during the hypotensive portion of the autoregulatory curve. We hypothesize that this variability, in normal animals, obeys a Gaussian distribution and characterizes a vasodilatory mechanism that is inherently different from that described by the lower limit.

Methods: Sixty-five male Sprague-Dawley rats were anesthetized with 0.5-1% halothane and 70% nitrous oxide in oxygen. Body temperature was maintained at 37 degrees C. Using a closed, superfused cranial window, CBF (as % of control) was determined using laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF) through the window with the intracranial pressure set at 10 mmHg. Animals with low vascular reactivity to inhaled carbon dioxide and superfused adenosine diphosphate (ADP) or acetylcholine were excluded. MABP was sequentially lowered by exsanguination to 100, 85, 70, 55, and 40 mmHg. Using the %CBF versus CPP plots for each curve (1) the lower limit of autoregulation was identified; (2) the pattern of autoregulation was classified as "peak" (a rise in LDF flow of at least 15% as arterial pressure was dropped), "classic" (plateau with a fall), or "none" (a fall in LDF flow of greater than 15%); (3) the area under the autoregulatory curve between CPPs of 30 and 90 mmHg was calculated; and (4) the magnitude of the %CBF response to hypotension was assessed by determining the %CBF at a CPP of 60 mmHg (%CBFCPP60).

Results: Of the 65 curves, 21 had the peak pattern, 33 the classic pattern, and 11 the none pattern. The %CBFCPP60 and autoregulatory area displayed Gaussian distributions, consistent with normal variability. Although %CBFCPP60, autoregulatory area, and pattern were significantly correlated (r or rho > 0.84, P < 0.001), the lower limit correlated weakly with autoregulatory area (r = 0.34, P = 0.012), and not at all with autoregulatory pattern or %CBFCPP60.

Conclusions: The %CBFCPP60 measures an aspect of the autoregulatory curve that is distinct from the lower limit. The peak autoregulatory pattern indicates that vessels are dilating more than is necessary to maintain a plateau in response to the pressure decrease, whereas the none pattern existed in spite of acceptable vascular responses to inhaled carbon dioxide and superfused ADP or ACh and the lack of surgical trauma. These results provide a different view of autoregulation during hypotension, are most likely dependent on the highly regional CBF method used, and could have implications concerning potential cerebral ischemia and hypotension during anesthesia.