Why the study?
It was hypothesized that baroreflex sensitivity decreases and rapid heart rate and cardiac output responses differ during a light-to-moderate exercise transient compared to a rest-to-exercise transient.
Does a 50-to-100 W exercise transient alter baroreflex sensitivity and cardiovascular kinetics differently than a rest-to-50 W transient in healthy subjects?
Does a 50-to-100 W exercise transient alter baroreflex sensitivity and cardiovascular kinetics differently than a rest-to-50 W transient in healthy subjects?
This physiological study demonstrates that during a light-to-moderate exercise transient, baroreflex sensitivity decreases more slowly and rapid cardiac output responses are blunted compared to a rest-to-exercise transient, likely due to incomplete vagal withdrawal.
May inform staged exercise modeling in healthy adults; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
Purpose We hypothesised that, during a light-to-moderate exercise transient, compared to an equivalent rest-to-exercise transient, (1) a further baroreflex sensitivity (BRS) decrease would be slower, (2) no rapid heart rate (HR) response would occur, and (3) the rapid cardiac output (CO) response would have a smaller amplitude ( A 1). Hence, we analysed the dynamics of arterial baroreflexes and the HR and CO kinetics during rest-to-50 W (0–50 W) and 50-to-100 W (50–100 W) exercise transients. Methods 10 subjects performed three 0–50 W and three 50–100 W on a cycle ergometer. We recorded arterial blood pressure profiles (photo-plethysmography) and R-to-R interval (RRi, electrocardiography). The former were analysed to obtain beat-by-beat mean arterial pressure (MAP) and stroke volume (SV). CO was calculated as SV times HR. BRS was measured by modified sequence method. Results During 0–50 W, MAP transiently fell (− 9.0 ± 5.7 mmHg, p < 0.01) and BRS passed from 15.0 ± 3.7 at rest to 7.3 ± 2.4 ms mmHg −1 at 50 W ( p < 0.01) promptly (first BRS sequence: 8.1 ± 4.6 ms mmHg −1 , p < 0.01 vs. rest). During 50–100 W, MAP did not fall and BRS passed from 7.2 ± 2.6 at 50 W to 3.3 ± 1.3 ms mmHg −1 at 100 W ( p < 0.01) slowly (first BRS sequence: 5.3 ± 3.1 ms mmHg −1 , p = 0.07 vs. 50 W). A1 for HR was 9.2 ± 6.0 and 6.0 ± 4.5 min −1 in 0–50 W and 50–100 W, respectively ( p = 0.19). The corresponding A1 for CO were 2.80 ± 1.54 and 0.91 ± 0.55 l∙min −1 ( p < 0.01). Conclusion During 50–100 W, with respect to 0–50 W, BRS decreased more slowly, in absence of a prompt pressure decrease. BRS decrease and rapid HR response in 50–100 W were unexpected and ascribed to possible persistence of some vagal tone at 50 W.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Taboni et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: