Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Accepted manuscripts
    • Issue in progress
    • Latest complete issue
    • Issue archive
    • Archive by article type
    • Special issues
    • Subject collections
    • Interviews
    • Sign up for alerts
  • About us
    • About JEB
    • Editors and Board
    • Editor biographies
    • Travelling Fellowships
    • Grants and funding
    • Journal Meetings
    • Workshops
    • The Company of Biologists
    • Journal news
  • For authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Aims and scope
    • Presubmission enquiries
    • Article types
    • Manuscript preparation
    • Cover suggestions
    • Editorial process
    • Promoting your paper
    • Open Access
    • Outstanding paper prize
    • Biology Open transfer
  • Journal info
    • Journal policies
    • Rights and permissions
    • Media policies
    • Reviewer guide
    • Sign up for alerts
  • Contacts
    • Contact JEB
    • Subscriptions
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
  • COB
    • About The Company of Biologists
    • Development
    • Journal of Cell Science
    • Journal of Experimental Biology
    • Disease Models & Mechanisms
    • Biology Open

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Experimental Biology
  • COB
    • About The Company of Biologists
    • Development
    • Journal of Cell Science
    • Journal of Experimental Biology
    • Disease Models & Mechanisms
    • Biology Open

supporting biologistsinspiring biology

Journal of Experimental Biology

  • Log in
Advanced search

RSS  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Accepted manuscripts
    • Issue in progress
    • Latest complete issue
    • Issue archive
    • Archive by article type
    • Special issues
    • Subject collections
    • Interviews
    • Sign up for alerts
  • About us
    • About JEB
    • Editors and Board
    • Editor biographies
    • Travelling Fellowships
    • Grants and funding
    • Journal Meetings
    • Workshops
    • The Company of Biologists
    • Journal news
  • For authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Aims and scope
    • Presubmission enquiries
    • Article types
    • Manuscript preparation
    • Cover suggestions
    • Editorial process
    • Promoting your paper
    • Open Access
    • Outstanding paper prize
    • Biology Open transfer
  • Journal info
    • Journal policies
    • Rights and permissions
    • Media policies
    • Reviewer guide
    • Sign up for alerts
  • Contacts
    • Contact JEB
    • Subscriptions
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
CORRESPONDENCE
What makes the blood go around?
Rafael Dalmau
Journal of Experimental Biology 2020 223: jeb224162 doi: 10.1242/jeb.224162 Published 29 April 2020
Rafael Dalmau
Department of Anesthesiology, Hospital Español de Rosario, S2001SBL Rosario, Argentina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Rafael Dalmau
  • For correspondence: rdalmau@hotmail.com
  • Article
  • Info & metrics
  • PDF
Loading

I appreciate Joyce and Wang's review of the determinants of blood flow in vertebrates (Joyce and Wang, 2020), featuring Guyton's model of the systemic circulation.

Although I do not dispute that Guyton's view ‘provides important insight into cardiovascular regulation’, some of the arguments supporting Guyton's ‘venous return’ model (GM) (as defined by their Eqn 1), as well as other arguments addressing the position of those who have criticized GM, require clarification.

From the outset, the authors seem to be confusing the heart's function as a pump (i.e. to generate flow) with heart performance regulation by the systemic vasculature (i.e. the vascular properties that determine cardiac output, CO). CO (which equals systemic flow) always equals ventricular stroke volume (SV) multiplied by ventricular stroke rate (SR):Embedded Image (1)SR=1/T, where T is the period (the time interval between beats), yielding CO with units of volume per unit of time (i.e. volume flow rate). This means that Eqn 1 does not establish ‘priority’ between SV and SR; CO will at all times be (SV×SR), whether SV or SR is under regulation.

In this regard, Joyce and Wang's points about SR are ambiguous. Indeed, SR regulation is complex, but SR does not ‘regulate’ CO; rather, it determines it (by Eqn 1). That is not to say that CO should vary in direct proportion to SR (as shown in their Fig. 1), as CO also depends on SV.

Secondly, SV is a function of ventricular preload (according to Starling's ‘law of the heart’ – which is not a ‘concept’ but rather the mathematical function by which the ventricles operate), and preload is determined by the physical properties of the vascular circuitry (volume, resistance and capacitance).

Misinterpretation of this basic mechanism of heart–vasculature interaction at the level of the filling side of the heart has led to the establishment of a false dichotomy whereby either the heart or the vasculature is considered ‘primary’ in CO regulation (Magder, 2006; Henderson, et al., 2010; Furst and O'Leary, 2016).

However, even Starling's and Guyton's classical experiments are not mutually exclusive, but complementary: the former related cardiac filling (measured as right atrial pressure, Pra, and set via an artificial blood reservoir) with CO in the isolated heart (yielding the function known as Starling's law), and the latter related CO (measured as the steady-state systemic flow set by an artificial pump) with cardiac filling (measured as Pra) in the isolated vasculature (Guyton's law).

As Brengelmann emphasized (Brengelmann, 2003; Brengelmann, 2019), Guyton's ‘important insight into cardiovascular regulation’ was that of counterpoising the two functions of the respective ‘open-loop’ subsystems yielding an input–output relationship (Pra:CO and CO:Pra) that dictates the stability of the closed-loop cardiovascular system (via negative feedback interaction), which is simultaneously consistent with heart and vascular properties, and of overlaying the two functional relationships (as in Fig. 2 of Joyce and Wang, 2020), with the consequence of plotting one of them ‘backwards’ (i.e. the independent variable on the ordinate and the dependent variable on the abscissa).

Unfortunately, the model represented by Joyce and Wang's Eqn 1 (and the related notions about the ‘mean systemic pressure’, and the ‘stressed’ and ‘unstressed’ vascular volumes explained in their review), is what transcended instead.

In addition, critics of GM have never conceived such a polarized, or ‘biased’, view of heart and vascular function, nor have they neglected the role of the vasculature in CO modulation. As a matter of fact, each one of the landmark papers by critics of this model (Grodins et al., 1960; Levy, 1979; Tyberg, 2002; Brengelmann, 2003; Reddi and Carpenter, 2005; Beard and Feigl, 2011; Brengelmann, 2019) is about vascular function and properties, and their interaction with the heart. Their focus has never been ‘cardio-centric’ in this regard.

Turning to comparative physiology, Loring B. Rowell consistently reviewed the subject of CO regulation in quadrupeds and bipeds and highlighted that the main difference between species is primarily due to two specific vascular properties; namely, the total capacitance (determined by size and compliance, both larger in humans) and, more importantly, volume distribution relative to heart level. While upright humans have approximately 80% of their total blood volume below heart level and in compliant venous vessels, quadrupeds have the same proportion at or above heart level.

This poses a crucial difference in blood volume distribution and therefore the volume available for cardiac filling (i.e. preload). Only in this way could CO be considered more ‘SR related’ in quadrupeds than in humans as heart preload is only slightly affected by postural and hemodynamic changes. In other words, cardiac preload (and, therefore, SV) depends on the pattern of blood volume distribution, which is virtually fixed in quadrupeds. Finally, as an outsider in the field of comparative physiology, I must refrain from commenting on specifics about blood flow and oxygen delivery regulation in various species of vertebrates. But I doubt that blood flow, like any other fluid flow, would somehow violate the principle of conservation of energy, as GM implies (Brengelmann, 2019).

Understanding that the heart (or any pump-like organ in the circulatory system) is the source of mechanical energy for steady-state blood flow does not reflect a biased focus but is in accordance with universal laws of thermodynamics.

Acknowledgements

I thank George L. Brengelmann, Department of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Washington, for continued encouragement and guidance.

FOOTNOTES

  • Competing interests

    The author declares no competing or financial interests.

  • © 2020. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd

References

  1. ↵
    1. Beard, D. A. and
    2. Feigl, E. O.
    (2011). Understanding Guyton's venous return curves. Am. J. Physiol. Heart. Circ. Physiol. 301, H629-H633. doi:10.1152/ajpheart.00228.2011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. ↵
    1. Brengelmann, G. L.
    (2003). A critical analysis of the view that right atrial pressure determines venous return. J. Appl. Physiol. 94, 849-859. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00868.2002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Brengelmann, G. L.
    (2019). Venous return and the physical connection between distribution of segmental pressures and volumes. Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol. 317, H939-H953. doi:10.1152/ajpheart.00381.2019
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. ↵
    1. Furst, B. and
    2. O'Leary, A. M.
    (2016). Is the heart a pressure or flow generator? Possible implications and suggestions for cardiovascular pedagogy. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 40, 200. doi:10.1152/advan.00191.2015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Grodins, F. S.,
    2. Stuart, W. H. and
    3. Veenstra, R. L.
    (1960). Performance characteristics of the right heart bypass preparation. Am. J. Physiol. 198, 552-560. doi:10.1152/ajplegacy.1960.198.3.552
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. ↵
    1. Henderson, W. R.,
    2. Griesdale, D. E. G.,
    3. Walley, K. R. and
    4. Sheel, A. W.
    (2010). Clinical review: Guyton - the role of mean circulatory filling pressure and right atrial pressure in controlling cardiac output. Crit. Care. 14, 243. doi:10.1186/cc9247
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Joyce, W. and
    2. Wang, T.
    (2020). What determines systemic blood flow in vertebrates? J. Exp. Biol. 223, jeb215335. doi:10.1242/jeb.215335
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Levy, M. N.
    (1979). The cardiac and vascular factors that determine systemic blood flow. Circ. Res. 44, 739-747, 1979. doi:10.1161/01.RES.44.6.739
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Magder, S.
    (2006). Point:Counterpoint: The classical Guyton view that mean systemic pressure, right atrial pressure, and venous resistance govern venous return is/is not correct. J. Appl. Physiol. 101, 1523-1525. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00698.2006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. ↵
    1. Tyberg, J. V.
    (2002). How changes in venous capacitance modulate cardiac output. Pflugers Arch. Eur. J. Physiol. 445, 10-17. doi:10.1007/s00424-002-0922-x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. ↵
    1. Reddi, B. A. J. and
    2. Carpenter, R. H. S.
    (2005). Venous excess: a new approach to cardiovascular control and its teaching. J. Appl. Physiol. 98, 356-364. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00535.2004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
Previous ArticleNext Article
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

This Issue

 Download PDF

Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Experimental Biology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
What makes the blood go around?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Experimental Biology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Experimental Biology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
CORRESPONDENCE
What makes the blood go around?
Rafael Dalmau
Journal of Experimental Biology 2020 223: jeb224162 doi: 10.1242/jeb.224162 Published 29 April 2020
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
CORRESPONDENCE
What makes the blood go around?
Rafael Dalmau
Journal of Experimental Biology 2020 223: jeb224162 doi: 10.1242/jeb.224162 Published 29 April 2020

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Alerts

Please log in to add an alert for this article.

Sign in to email alerts with your email address

Article navigation

  • Top
  • Article
    • Acknowledgements
    • FOOTNOTES
    • References
  • Info & metrics
  • PDF

Related articles

Cited by...

More in this TOC section

  • Response to ‘No evidence for hibernation in rockwrens’
  • No evidence for hibernation in rockwrens
  • Response to: Lipid content of whale blubber cannot be measured using biopsies
Show more CORRESPONDENCE

Similar articles

Other journals from The Company of Biologists

Development

Journal of Cell Science

Disease Models & Mechanisms

Biology Open

Advertisement

Meet the Editors at SICB Virtual 2021

Reserve your place to join some of the journal editors, including Editor-in-Chief Craig Franklin, at our Meet the Editor session on 17 February at 2pm (EST). Don’t forget to view our SICB Subject Collection, featuring relevant JEB papers relating to some of the symposia sessions.


2020 at The Company of Biologists

Despite 2020's challenges, we were able to bring a number of long-term projects and new ventures to fruition. As we enter a new year, join us as we reflect on the triumphs of the last 12 months.


Critical temperature window sends migratory black-headed buntings on their travels

The spring rise in temperature at black-headed bunting overwintering sites is essential for triggering the physical changes that they undergo before embarking on their spring migration – read more.


Developmental and reproductive physiology of small mammals at high altitude

Cayleih Robertson and Kathryn Wilsterman focus on high-altitude populations of the North American deer mouse in their review of the challenges and evolutionary innovations of pregnant and nursing small mammals at high altitude.


Read & Publish participation extends worldwide

“Being able to publish Open Access articles free of charge means that my article gets maximum exposure and has maximum impact, and that all my peers can read it regardless of the agreements that their universities have with publishers.”

Professor Roi Holzman (Tel Aviv University) shares his experience of publishing Open Access as part of our growing Read & Publish initiative. We now have over 60 institutions in 12 countries taking part – find out more and view our full list of participating institutions.

Articles

  • Accepted manuscripts
  • Issue in progress
  • Latest complete issue
  • Issue archive
  • Archive by article type
  • Special issues
  • Subject collections
  • Interviews
  • Sign up for alerts

About us

  • About JEB
  • Editors and Board
  • Editor biographies
  • Travelling Fellowships
  • Grants and funding
  • Journal Meetings
  • Workshops
  • The Company of Biologists
  • Journal news

For Authors

  • Submit a manuscript
  • Aims and scope
  • Presubmission enquiries
  • Article types
  • Manuscript preparation
  • Cover suggestions
  • Editorial process
  • Promoting your paper
  • Open Access
  • Outstanding paper prize
  • Biology Open transfer

Journal Info

  • Journal policies
  • Rights and permissions
  • Media policies
  • Reviewer guide
  • Sign up for alerts

Contact

  • Contact JEB
  • Subscriptions
  • Advertising
  • Feedback

 Twitter   YouTube   LinkedIn

© 2021   The Company of Biologists Ltd   Registered Charity 277992