Key result
Heart transplant recipients demonstrated a significantly lower maximal workload compared to patients with coronary artery disease (106 W vs 163 W, p<0.01), although endurance kinetics were comparable.
Why the study?
The influence of cardiac denervation on endurance exercise capacity in heart transplant recipients compared to patients with coronary artery disease was unclear.
Cross-Sectional (n=33)
May support anaerobic threshold-based training in heart transplant recipients; leaves open selective effects of denervation on maximal versus endurance capacity.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of cardiac denervation on endurance exercise capacity in heart transplant recipients (HTR) in comparison to patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: We performed two successive incremental tests and a 30-min constant load test (CLT) in 20 HTR (55 +/- 7 years old, 4.9 +/- 2.2 years after transplantation) and in 13 patients with CAD (58 +/- 8 years). RESULTS: Maximal workload in HTR was 106 +/- 25 W (163 +/- 41 W; p < 0.01). In CLT at anaerobic threshold of 55 +/- 6 W (97 +/- 34 W; p < 0.01), lactate increased from 0.9 +/- 0.2 (1.0 +/- 0.2) to 2.9 +/- 1.3 (3.3 +/- 1.3) after 10 min and to 3.1 +/- 1.6 (3.4 +/- 1.5; NS) mmol. l(-1) after 30 min, confirming that the anaerobic threshold reflects a steady state. The CLT kinetics of heart rate (+6 beats in HTR and in CAD between 10th and 30th min) and lactate are comparable in HTR and CAD, demonstrating that endurance kinetics are not influenced by cardiac denervation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tegtbur et al. (2003) conducted a cross-sectional in Heart transplantation (n=33). Heart transplantation (cardiac denervation) vs. Coronary artery disease was evaluated on Maximal workload (p=<0.01). Heart transplant recipients demonstrated a significantly lower maximal workload compared to patients with coronary artery disease (106 W vs 163 W, p<0.01), although endurance kinetics were comparable.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: