What is it about?
This article is the first to provide a comprehensive discussion of the pitfalls of using a constant inhaled carbon dioxide concentration as a stimulus to study the ability of brain blood vessels to respond as an indicator of their health. It also explains why providing a repeatable stimulus actually requires complex computer-driven systems.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
This article raises the specter of false conclusions based on these false assumptions in tens of thousands of previous publications and many current studies. On the positive side, the ability to administer a reliably consistent stimulus using computer driven gas blending and strategic rebreathing of previously exhaled gas, enables the standardization of the CVR and readies it for tackling clinical problems.
Perspectives
This opinion piece was difficult to write as it raises questions about conclusions of many articles written by outstanding investigators over many decades, obviously unaware of issues outside their field. And as the developer of the computerized method of attaining precise carbon dioxide stimuli, I certainly have a pointed perspective and conflict of interest. However, what I say is important, has not been said before, and is true.
Dr Joseph Arnold Fisher
univ
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: The CO2 stimulus for cerebrovascular reactivity: Fixing inspired concentrations vs. targeting end-tidal partial pressures, Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism, March 2016, SAGE Publications,
DOI: 10.1177/0271678x16639326.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
