Why the study?
Does indomethacin reduce the pressor response to sustained isometric contraction in healthy male subjects?
Does indomethacin reduce the pressor response to sustained isometric contraction in healthy male subjects?
Indomethacin does not blunt pressor or sympathetic responses to isometric exercise; challenges prostaglandin mediation in healthy humans.
The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that prostaglandins participate in metaboreceptor stimulation of the pressor response to sustained isometric handgrip contraction in humans. To accomplish this, mean arterial pressure, heart rate (n = 10), and plasma norepinephrine levels (n = 8) were measured in healthy male subjects during sustained isometric handgrip at 40% of maximal voluntary contraction force to exhaustion and during a period of postcontraction muscle ischemia. The subjects were given a double-blind and counterbalanced administration of placebo or a single 100-mg dose of indomethacin. A period of 1 wk was allowed for systemic clearance of the drug. Mean arterial pressure increased 25 +/- 5 vs. 22 +/- 4 mmHg during the final minute of isometric handgrip contraction and 26 +/- 2 vs. 21 +/- 5 during the last minute of postcontraction muscle ischemia in the placebo vs. the indomethacin trial (P > 0.05), respectively. Heart rate was increased 21 +/- 4 vs. 17 +/- 3 beats/min during the final minute of isometric handgrip contraction in the placebo vs. the indomethacin trial (P > 0.05), respectively, and returned to control values during postcontraction muscle ischemia. Plasma norepinephrine levels increased 343 +/- 89 vs. 289 +/- 89 pg/ml after isometric handgrip contraction and 675 +/- 132 vs. 632 +/- 132 pg/ml after postcontraction muscle ischemia (P > 0.05) in the placebo vs. the indomethacin trial, respectively. These results suggest that prostaglandin inhibition does not significantly modulate muscle contraction-induced stimulation of mean arterial pressure, heart rate, or plasma norepinephrine levels.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Davy et al. (1993) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: