■ Abstract Familial dysautonomia (FD) patients frequently experience debilitating orthostatic hypotension. Since physical countermaneuvers can increase blood pressure (BP) in other groups of patients with orthostatic hypotension, we evaluated the effectiveness of countermaneuvers in FD patients.In 17 FD patients (26.4 ± 12.4 years, eight female), we monitored heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP), cardiac output (CO), total peripheral resistance (TPR) and calf volume while supine, during standing and during application of four countermaneuvers: bending forward, squatting, leg crossing, and abdominal compression using an inflatable belt. Countermaneuvers were initiated after standing up, when systolic BP had fallen by 40 mmHg or diastolic BP by 30 mmHg or presyncope had occurred.During active standing, blood pressure and TPR decreased, calf volume increased but CO remained stable. Mean BP increased significantly during bending forward (by 20.0 (17-28.5) mmHg; P = 0.005) (median (25 th -75 th quartile)), squatting (by 50.8 (33.5-56) mmHg; P = 0.002), and abdominal compression (by 5.8 (-1-34.7) mmHg; P = 0.04) -but not during leg-crossing. Squatting and abdominal compression also induced a significant increase in CO (by 18.1 (-1.3-47.9) % during squatting (P = 0.02) and by 7.6 (0.4-19.6) % during abdominal compression (P = 0.014)). HR did not change significantly during the countermaneuvers. TPR increased significantly only during squatting (by 37.2 (11.8-48.2) %; P = 0.01). However, orthopedic problems or ataxia prevented several patients from performing some of the countermaneuvers. Additionally, many patients required assistance with the maneuvers.Squatting, bending forward and abdominal compression can improve orthostatic BP in FD patients, which is achieved mainly by an increased cardiac output. Squatting has the greatest effect on orthostatic blood pressure in FD patients. Suitability and effectiveness of a specific countermaneuver depends on the orthopedic or neurological complications of each FD patient and must be individually tested before a therapeutic recommendation can be given.■ Key words physical maneuvers · familial dysautonomia · syncope · autonomic failure · impedance cardiography 1 Published in "Journal of Neurology 253(1): 65-72, 2006" which should be cited to refer to this work.

Cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy has been previously reported in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) using standard reflex tests. However, no study has separately evaluated both parasympathetic and sympathetic cardiovascular autonomic regulation. We therefore assessed the baroreflex-mediated vagal and sympathetic control of the heart rate and sympathetic control of the blood vessels in MS patients using sinusoidal neck stimulation. We studied 13 multiple sclerosis patients aged 28-58 years and 18 healthy controls aged 26-58 years. The carotid baroreflex was stimulated by sinusoidal neck suction (0 to -30 mmHg) at 0.1 Hz to assess the autonomic control of the heart and blood vessels, and at 0.2 Hz to assess the vagal control of the heart. Continuous recordings were made of blood pressure, electrocardiographic RR-interval and respiration, with breathing paced at 0.25 Hz. Spectral analysis was used to evaluate the magnitude of the low frequency (LF, 0.03-0.14 Hz) and high frequency (HF, 0.15-0.50 Hz) oscillations in RR-interval and blood pressure in response to the sinusoidal baroreceptor stimulation. Responses to the applied stimulus were assessed as the change in the spectral power of the RR-interval and blood pressure fluctuations at the stimulating frequency from the baseline values. The increase in the power of 0.1 Hz RR-interval oscillations during the 0.1 Hz neck suction was significantly smaller (p<0.01) in the MS patients (4.47+/-0.27 to 5.62+/-0.25 ln ms(2)) than in the controls (4.12+/-0.37 to 6.82+/-0.33 ln ms(2)). The increase in the power of 0.1 Hz systolic BP oscillations during 0.1 Hz neck suction was also significantly smaller (p<0.01) in the MS patients (0.99+/-0.19 to 1.96+/-0.39 mmHg(2)) than in the healthy controls (1.27+/-0.34 to 9.01+/-4.10 mmHg(2)). Neck suction at 0.2 Hz induced RR-interval oscillations at 0.2 Hz that were significantly smaller (p<0.05) in the patients (3.22+/-0.45 ln ms(2)) than in the controls (5.27+/-0.29 ln ms(2)). These results indicate that in MS patients, baroreflex dysfunction is not only restricted to the cardiovagal limb of the baroreflex, but that the sympathetic modulation of the blood vessels is also affected.

Ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) lesions can alter emotional and autonomic responses. In animals, VMPFC activation results in cardiovascular sympathetic inhibition. In humans, VMPFC modulates emotional processing and autonomic response to arousal (e.g. accompanying decision-making). The specific role of the left or right VMPFC in mediating somatic responses to non-arousing, daily-life pleasant or unpleasant stimuli is unclear. To further evaluate VMPFC interaction with autonomic processing of non-stressful emotional stimuli and assess the effects of stimulus valence, we studied patients with unilateral VMPFC lesions and assessed autonomic modulation at rest and during physical challenge, and heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) responses to non-stressful neutral, pleasant and unpleasant visual stimulation (VES) via emotionally laden slides. In 6 patients (54.0 +/- 7.2 years) with left-sided VMPFC lesions (VMPFC-L), 7 patients (43.3 +/- 11.6 years) with right-sided VMPFC lesions (VMPFC-R) and 13 healthy volunteers (44.7 +/- 11.6 years), we monitored HR as R-R interval (RRI), BP, respiration, end-tidal carbon dioxide levels, and oxygen saturation at rest, during autonomic challenge by metronomic breathing, a Valsalva manoeuvre and active standing, and in response to non-stressful pleasant, unpleasant and neutral VES. Pleasantness versus unpleasantness of slides was rated on a 7-point Likert scale. At rest, during physical autonomic challenge, and during neutral VES, parameters did not differ between the patient groups and volunteers. During VES, Likert scores also were similar across the three groups. During pleasant and unpleasant VES, HR decreased (i.e. RRI increased) significantly whereas BP remained unchanged in volunteers. In VMPFC-L patients, HR decrease was insignificant with pleasant and unpleasant VES. BP slightly increased (P = 0.06) with pleasant VES but was stable with unpleasant VES. In contrast, VMPFC-R patients had significant increases in HR and BP during pleasant and not quite significant HR increases (P = 0.06) with only slight BP increase during unpleasant VES. Other biosignals remained unchanged during VES in all groups. Our results show that VMPFC has no major influence on autonomic modulation at rest and during non-emotional, physical stimulation. The paradoxical HR and BP responses in VMPFC-R patients suggest hemispheric specialization for VMPFC interaction with predominant parasympathetic activation by the left, but sympathetic inhibition by the right VMPFC. Valence of non-stressful stimuli has a limited effect with more prominent left VMPFC modulation of pleasant and more right VMPFC modulation of unpleasant stimuli. The paradoxical sympathetic disinhibition in VMPFC-R patients may increase their risk of sympathetic hyperexcitability with negative consequences such as anxiety, hypertension or cardiac arrhythmias.