Why the study?
Does combined intravenous and oral rehydration improve cardiovascular recovery after exercise dehydration compared to single rehydration methods in trained subjects?
Does combined intravenous and oral rehydration improve cardiovascular recovery after exercise dehydration compared to single rehydration methods in trained subjects?
Combined intravenous and oral rehydration is more effective than single methods for rapidly restoring cardiovascular function after exercise-induced dehydration.
Supports combined IV+OR rehydration for faster post-exercise CV recovery in trained athletes; extends single-method trials with direct RCT comparison.
Our purpose was to compare the common modes of rehydration (REHY) on cardiovascular and fluid regulation recovery after exercise dehydration (EXDE). Twelve nonheat-acclimatized trained subjects (age: 23 ± 4 years, weight: 81.3 ± 3.7 kg, height: 180 ± 6 cm, V[Combining Dot Above]O2max: 56.9 ± 4.4 ml·min·kg , and body fat: 7.8 ± 3.0%) completed 20-hour fluid restriction and 2-hour EXDE to -4% body mass, and then were rehydrated to -2% body mass in a randomized, crossover design. The REHY methods included no fluid (NF), ad libitum, oral (OR), intravenous (IV), and a combination of IV and OR (IV + OR) of 1/2-normal saline (0.45% NaCl). The REHY occurred for 30 minutes, and the subjects were observed during rest for 30 minutes. Seated, standing, and mean arterial pressure (MAP) and blood pressure (BP) were measured every 15 minutes throughout REHY. Heart rate (HR), plasma arginine vasopressin concentration [AVP], and thirst perception were measured throughout REHY. The EXDE resulted in a body mass loss of 4.32 ± 0.22%. The REHY returned the subjects to -2.13 ± 0.47% body mass for controlled trials. Seated systolic BP was greater for IV + OR compared with that for OR (p = 0.015). Seated systolic BP and MAP during REHY showed that IV + OR was greater than OR, independent of time (p ≤ 0.011). Upon standing, IV + OR demonstrated a greater BP than both NF (p = 0.012) and OR (p = 0.031) did. The HR was reduced by IV and IV + OR to a greater extent than NF at REHY30 and REHY60 (p < 0.05). The IV + OR [AVP] demonstrated a strong trend for decreasing over time (p = 0.054) and was significantly less than NF at REHY60 (p = 0.003). Practical application seeking to restore cardiovascular function after EXDE, the combined use of IV + OR rather than a single REHY method seems to be most expedient.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McDermott et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: