PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10944920

[Microgravity and autonomic nervous system].

Abstract

How microgravity influences autonomic function is still under investigation. Microgravity induces neuro-vestibular alterations and body fluid shift, and these two changes cause "space motion sickness(SMS)" and cardiovascular deconditioning. "Space motion sickness" is a autonomic syndrome that exhibits nausea, vomiting, headache, anorexia, pallor etc., whose incidence in Space Shuttle mission reaches 67.1%. There are several hypotheses for SMS mechanism: 1) sensory conflict, 2) fluid shift, 3) otolith asymmetry, 4) space orientation readaptation, 5) otolith tilt-translation reinterpretation, and these hypotheses are considered to be combined together to cause SMS. After space flight, 64% of the astronauts suffer from orthostatic intolerance, which is defined as incompletion of 15 min of 70 degrees head-up tilt. Several causes for the deconditioning have been hypothesized, dehydration followed by fluid shift, altered gain for baroreflex sensitivity, decreased venous capacitance, etc. In our previous studies, we recorded muscle sympathetic nerve activity(MSNA) by microneurography under simulated and actual microgravity conditions. Parabolic flight, which induces 20 sec of actual microgravity, suppressed MSNA to 50%. Head-out water immersion suppressed MSNA to 20% while gradual recovery was observed during 3 hours of immersion. Dry immersion for 3 days revealed that MSNA was enhanced after simulated microgravity while the response to orthostasis was unchanged. Bed rest for 6, 14, and 120 days and Neurolab Project clarified the same tendency for longer duration of simulated microgravity. These alterations in MSNA might be attributed to the development of cardiovascular deconditioning after microgravity exposure.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S Iwase, T Mano. 2000. [Microgravity and autonomic nervous system].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10944920/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

The diagnostic workup of patients with neuropathic pain.

Determining the causes of neuropathic pain is more than an epistemological exercise. At its essence, it is a quest to delineate mechanisms of dysfunction through which treatment strategies can be created that are effective in reducing, ameliorating, or eliminating symptomatology. To date, predictors of which patients will develop neuropathic pain or who will respond to specific therapies are lacking, and present therapies have been developed mainly through trial and error. Our current inability to make therapeutically meaningful decisions based on ancillary test data is illustrated by the following: In a study specifically designed to assess the response of patients with painful distal sensory neuropathies to the 5% lidocaine patch, no relationship between treatment response and distal leg skin biopsy, QST, or sensory nerve conduction study results could be established. From a mechanistic perspective, the hypothesis that the lidocaine patch would be most effective in patients with relatively intact epidermal innervation, whose neuropathic pain is presumed attributable to "irritable nociceptors," and least effective in patients with few surviving epidermal nociceptors, presumably with "deafferentation pain," was unproven. The possible explanations are multiple and outside the scope of this review. However, these findings, coupled with the disparity in C-fiber subtype involvement in diabetic small-fiber neuropathy, and the recently reported inability of enzyme replacement therapy in Fabry disease to influence intraepidermal innervation density, while having mixed effects on cold and warm QST thresholds, and beneficial effects on sudomotor findings, when therapeutic benefit was demonstrated, lead one to conclude that the specificity of ancillary testing in neuropathic pain is inadequate at present, and reinforce the aforementioned caveats about inferential conclusions from indirect data. The diagnosis of neuropathic pain mechanisms is in its nascent stages and ancillary testing remains "subordinate," "subsidiary," and "auxiliary" as defined in Webster's Third New International Dictionary. As a consequence of these difficulties, the recent approach by Bennett and his colleagues may have merit. They have hypothesized (and provide data in support) that chronic pain can be more or less neuropathic on a spectrum between "likely," "possible," and "unlikely," based on patient responses on validated neuropathic pain symptom scales, when compared with specialist pain physician certainty of the presence of neuropathic pain on a 100-mm visual analog scale. The symptoms most associated with neuropathic pain were dysesthesias, evoked pain, paroxysmal pain, thermal pain, autonomic complaints, and descriptions of the pain as being sharp, hot, or cold, with high sensitivity. Higher scores for these symptoms correlated with greater clinician certainty of the presence of neuropathic pain mechanisms. Considering each individual patient's chronic pain as being somewhere on a continuum between "purely nociceptive" and "purely neuropathic" may have diagnostic and therapeutic relevance by enhancing specificity, but this requires clinical confirmation. Thus, symptom assessment remains indispensable in the evaluation of neuropathic pain, ancillary testing notwithstanding

Autonomic Nervous System↗