Cerebrovascular physiology – article alert #40

Heat stress and the brain

173- Sweat loss during heat stress contributes to subsequent reductions in lower-body negative pressure tolerance – Lucas et al.

Sympathetic activity and the brain

174- α1-Adrenergic receptor control of the cerebral vasculature in humans at rest and during exercise – Purkayastha et al.

High altitude and the brain

175- Sustained high-altitude hypoxia increases cerebral oxygen metabolism – Smith et al.

Blood pressure and the brain

176- Correction for blood pressure improves correlation between cerebrovascular reactivity assessed by breath holding and 6% CO2 breathing – Prakash et al.

Cerebrovascular physiology – article alert #39

Blood pressure control and the brain

169- Decreasing arterial aging by controlling blood pressure levels and hypertension: a step forward – Scuteri and Cunha

Brain monitoring

170- Cerebral oximetry monitoring during preoperative phlebotomy to limit allogeneic blood use in patients undergoing cardiac surgery – Dewhirst et al.

Ischemic stroke and the brain

171- Cerebral blood flow response to neural activation after acute ischemic stroke: a failure of myogenic regulation ? – Salinet et al.

Hyperthermia and the brain

172- Regional changes in brain blood flow during severe passive hyperthermia; the effects of PaCO2 and extra-cranial blood flow – Bain et al.

1+ for peer review ! (at least in this case)

Regular readers will remember my interest for the influence of vasopressors on brain perfusion and oxygenation. You can have a look here, here, here and here for further details. I have started to work in this research area during my postdoc in Copenhagen with Niels Secher. We had a lot of great discussions about that issue and we published a couple of papers (#1, #2 and #3). Obviously, I am still interested in this exciting issue and I have thus decided to study the influence of vasopressors on brain oxygenation in disease states (main focus of my lab at the moment)

I have recently submitted a beautiful story (at least in my taste!) for publication with the first data coming from my own lab and related to that issue. I was pretty excited !

Yesterday, I received the email from the editor of the journal…

Dear Dr. Brassard,

Thank you for submitting your paper to the VERY INTERESTING JOURNAL.  This paper was reviewed by our editorial board and found to require revision and re-submission for further evaluation.

This paper is special because it is the first time that I am on my own with that issue. I have put a lot of pressure on my shoulders. So, that answer is very positive, especially after all those grant rejections !

After having read the first paragraph of the email announcing that great news, I had a quick look at reviewers’ comments…

Reviewer #1…ok

Reviewer #2…ok

Reviewer #3 (this one should not be seen as the 3rd reviewer)…ok

Reviewer #4 !!1 !

Four reviewers had a look at this paper ! I usually only have comments from two reviewers…but four !

This being said, these people did A.GREAT.JOB ! Too often, our papers are rejected with about two lines of explanations per reviewer. It is definitely refreshing to know that reviewers care about this kind of work. They are asking a lot of though questions, they are providing interesting suggestions, and importantly, everything is done with a positive tone. I can tell you right away, this paper will be considerably improved following it’s revision according to the reviewers’ comments.

1+ for peer review…at least in this case !