4.6 Article

Respiratory Muscle Training Improves Chemoreflex Response, Heart Rate Variability, and Respiratory Mechanics in Rats With Heart Failure

Journal

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 33, Issue 4, Pages 508-514

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cjca.2016.11.004

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) (Brazil)
  3. Universidade Federal de Ciencias da Saude de Porto Alegre (Brazil)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The aim of the present report was to evaluate respiratory muscle training (RMT) effects on hemodynamic function, chemoreflex response, heart rate variability, and respiratory mechanics in rats with heart failure (HF rats). Methods: Wistar rats were divided into 4 groups: sedentary-sham (Sed-Sham, n = 8), respiratory muscle trained-sham (RMT-Sham, n = 8), sedentary-HF (Sed-HF, n = 8) and respiratory muscle trained-HF (RMT-HF, n = 8). Animals were submitted to an RMT protocol performed 30 minutes per day, 5 days per week for 6 weeks, whereas the sedentary animals did not exercise. Results: In HF rats, RMT promoted the reduction of left ventricular end-diastolic pressure, right ventricular hypertrophy, and pulmonary edema. Moreover, RMT produced a reduction in pressure response during chemoreflex activation, sympathetic modulation, and sympathetic vagal balance in addition to an increase in parasympathetic modulation. Also after RMT, HF rats demonstrated a reduction in respiratory system resistance, tissue resistance, Newtonian resistance, respiratory system compliance, and quasistatic compliance. Conclusions: These findings suggested that 6 weeks of RMT in HF rats promoted beneficial adaptations in hemodynamics, autonomic function, and respiratory mechanics and attenuated pressure response evoked by chemoreflex activation in HF rats.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available