Introduction Microcirculatory homeostasis depends on a highly efficient regulation involving multiple sensors and effectors, both central and peripheral. This allows compensatory response to neuroendocrine output affecting cardiorespiratory performance and systemic vascular resistance and local microcirculatory (endothelial and myogenic) activity. In previous studies a Prompt Adaptive Hemodynamic Response (PAHR) affecting systemic hemodynamics was identified in both lower limbs when acute changes of peripheral microcirculatory perfusion were evoked in only one limb.   Aims / Objectives To investigate if the PAHR previously identified in the lower limb can be also detected in the upper limb.   Methods Twelve healthy adults both sexes (39.3 ± 16.4 y.o.) were previous selected. Procedures respected all the principles of good clinical practice for human research. After adapting to the room’s temperature humidity and light (appr. 15 minute) participants were randomly assigned to two 15 min protocols (each 3 phases of 5 min). Protocols differed only in the challenge phase (Phase 2) applied to one test limb (TL) randomly chosen while the other remained inactive (IL). In Protocol 1 (P1) (n=6) the challenge was a post-occlusive hyperaemia applied by an arterial pressure cuff in the arm; In Protocol 2 (P2) (n=6) one limb performed an active movement (TL) for 5 min. Blood perfusion (BP) and the concentration of red blood cells (CRBC) were assessed in 2nd fingertip with Laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF) and in the palm with Polarized Spectroscopy (PS). Descriptive and comparative statistics were performed and a 95% level of confidence adopted. Results and discussion In each individual, a perfusion asymmetry was noted at rest as expected, although not significant. Both protocols evoked similar responses of BP in the tested limb but also in the contralateral inactive limb. With P1 a clear perfusion reduction was recorded in both limbs during Phase 2, (p=0.002) only significant in TL – 90.2% (p=0.028). In the IL, values fell by an average of 23.1%. CRBC changes detected by LDF and PS were non-significant in both sides. With P2, changes were also detected during Phase 2 (during movement) also increasing perfusion IL (measurements were not possible in TL in Phase 2). Nevertheless, perfusion modifications always occurred in the same direction. The recovery was gradually made during the final 5 min interval, with faster recovery noted in P2. Conclusion These exploratory results confirm that the PAHR firstly described in the lower limb can also be detected in the upper limb. This confirms the interest for the use of this potential clinical outcome for diagnostic purposes and as a reference for the disease recovery process.