Home Influence of an osteopathic manipulative intervention on cerebral blood velocity changes: do we have the whole story to appropriately interpret the data?
Article Open Access

Influence of an osteopathic manipulative intervention on cerebral blood velocity changes: do we have the whole story to appropriately interpret the data?

  • Audrey Drapeau ORCID logo , Sarah Imhoff ORCID logo and Patrice Brassard ORCID logo EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: October 1, 2021

We read with interest the article by Roberts et al. that was recently published in this journal [1]. The authors performed a randomized, single-blinded, two-period, two-treatment crossover study to evaluate the impact of the occipitoatlantal decompression, compared to a sham manipulation, on intracranial and extracranial blood velocity responses in young healthy participants. The authors [1] reported increased end-diastolic velocity in the internal carotid artery (ICA), vertebral artery (VA), and middle cerebral artery (MCA) following the intervention but not after the sham treatment.

Several mechanisms intricately work interdependently to determine adequate cerebral blood flow (CBF) [2, 3]: cerebrovascular reactivity to blood gases [4], cerebral autoregulation [5], neurovascular coupling [6], neurogenic factor [7, 8], and systemic factor [9]. Although the authors reported no changes in heart rate and blood pressure with the osteopathic manipulation, one major mechanism was not considered in this study. Indeed, carbon dioxide is a potent CBF determinant [4]. Surprisingly, arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide was omitted from data collection nor was its absence addressed in discussion of study limitations. Without inclusion of this important variable, it is difficult to ensure blood velocity changes reported by the authors are a direct consequence of the osteopathic manipulation.

Another crucial methodological consideration is that cerebral blood velocity is representative of CBF only if the diameter of cerebral arteries remains stable [10]. It would have thus been interesting to monitor ICA and VA blood flow – not only blood velocity – since it is feasible to measure the diameter of these extracranial arteries. Regarding the MCA, it is not possible to measure its diameter with transcranial Doppler ultrasound, which is another important but unaddressed limitation of this study. Interpreting these cerebral blood velocity changes as representing CBF changes following the osteopathic manipulative intervention without appropriate nuances and caveats is problematic. Knowing if an osteopathic manipulative intervention increases or decreases CBF is relevant for a safe and efficient practice. However, end-diastolic velocity alone may not be sufficient [11], [12], [13].

The authors [1] are congratulated for their effort aimed at examining the influence of an osteopathic manipulation on cerebral blood velocity responses. This being acknowledged, concomitant examination of key CBF determinants, appropriately interpreted cerebral blood velocity data, and/or inclusion of volumetric blood flow are essential in future studies to provide an adequate understanding of the short- and long-term cerebrovascular consequences of osteopathic manipulative interventions.


Corresponding author: Patrice Brassard, PhD, Department of Kinesiology, Faculty of Medicine, PEPS - Université Laval, 2300 rue de la Terrasse, Room 0290-H, Québec (Qc) GIV 0A6, Canada; and Research Center of the Institut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec, Québec, Canada, E-mail:

  1. Research funding: None reported.

  2. Author contributions: All authors provided substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; all authors drafted the article or revised it critically for important intellectual content; all authors gave final approval of the version of the article to be published; and all authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

  3. Competing interests: None reported.

References

1. Roberts, B, Makar, AE, Canaan, R, Pazdernik, V, Kondrashova, T. Effect of occipitoatlantal decompression on cerebral blood flow dynamics as evaluated by Doppler ultrasonography. J Osteopath Med 2021;121:171–9. https://doi.org/10.1515/jom-2020-0100.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

2. Ainslie, PN, Duffin, J. Integration of cerebrovascular CO2 reactivity and chemoreflex control of breathing: mechanisms of regulation, measurement, and interpretation. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 2009;296:R1473–95. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.91008.2008.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

3. Willie, CK, Tzeng, YC, Fisher, JA, Ainslie, PN. Integrative regulation of human brain blood flow. J Physiol 2014;592:841–59. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2013.268953.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

4. Hoiland, RL, Fisher, JA, Ainslie, PN. Regulation of the cerebral circulation by arterial carbon dioxide. Comp Physiol 2019;9:1101–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/cphy.c180021.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

5. Claassen, J, Thijssen, DHJ, Panerai, RB, Faraci, FM. Regulation of cerebral blood flow in humans: physiology and clinical implications of autoregulation. Physiol Rev 2021;101:1487–559. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00022.2020.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

6. Phillips, AA, Chan, FH, Zheng, MM, Krassioukov, AV, Ainslie, PN. Neurovascular coupling in humans: physiology, methodological advances and clinical implications. J Cerebr Blood Flow Metabol 2016;36:647–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271678x15617954.Search in Google Scholar

7. Brassard, P, Tymko, MM, Ainslie, PN. Sympathetic control of the brain circulation: appreciating the complexities to better understand the controversy. Auton Neurosci 2017;207:37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autneu.2017.05.003.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

8. Ainslie, PN, Brassard, P. Why is the neural control of cerebral autoregulation so controversial? F1000Prime Rep 2014;6:14. https://doi.org/10.12703/P6-14.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

9. Meng, L, Hou, W, Chui, J, Han, R, Gelb, AW. Cardiac output and cerebral blood flow: the integrated regulation of brain perfusion in adult humans. Anesthesiology 2015;123:1198–208. https://doi.org/10.1097/aln.0000000000000872.Search in Google Scholar

10. Serrador, JM, Picot, PA, Rutt, BK, Shoemaker, JK, Bondar, RL. MRI measures of middle cerebral artery diameter in conscious humans during simulated orthostasis. Stroke 2000;31:1672–8. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.31.7.1672.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

11. Hoskins, PR. Accuracy of maximum velocity estimates made using Doppler ultrasound systems. Br J Radiol 1996;69:172–7. https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-69-818-172.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

12. Hoskins, PR. A review of the measurement of blood velocity and related quantities using Doppler ultrasound. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 1999;213:391–400. https://doi.org/10.1243/0954411991535004.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

13. Willie, CK, Colino, FL, Bailey, DM, Tzeng, YC, Binsted, G, Jones, LW, et al.. Utility of transcranial Doppler ultrasound for the integrative assessment of cerebrovascular function. J Neurosci Methods 2011;196:221–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2011.01.011.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2021-09-11
Accepted: 2021-09-17
Published Online: 2021-10-01

© 2021 Audrey Drapeau et al., published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Downloaded on 19.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/jom-2021-0225/html
Scroll to top button