4.5 Article

Blood pressure in patients with intermittent claudication increases continuously during walking

Journal

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2006.06.023

Keywords

intermittent claudication; peripheral vascular disease; exercise; blood pressure

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. The purpose of this study was to compare the circulatory responses to walking in patients with peripheral atherosclerotic disease (PAD) and healthy controls. Methods. The participants were eleven patients with diagnosed PAD, and a control group of six healthy age-matched adults. Blood pressure, heart rate (HR), and acral skin Perfusion were recorded continuously before, during and after a walking exercise on a treadmill. Results. The patients walked to maximum claudication distance (MCD) on a treadmill, median walking distance 103 (34-223) metres [median (range)], at 3.3 (1.0-4.5) km/h. There was a steep increase in HR and mean arterial pressure (MAP) while the patients were walking. At claudication the median rise in MAP was 46.6 (10.3-61.3) mmHg, systolic blood pressure (SP) increased by 84.9 (31.4-124.9) mmHg, and diastolic blood pressure (DP) by 21.7 (-2.1-31.7) mmHg. HR increased by 34.9 (12.9-48.1) beats/min. The control group walked for 5 minutes at 3.2 (3.0-3.3) km/h. In the control group the blood pressure initially increased moderately but stabilised thereafter. Median rise in MAP during walking was 8.5 (5.6-14.6) mmHg, SP increased by 30.9 (6.6-41.5) mmHg, and DP was reduced by -1.4 (-5.4-1.5) mmHg. HR increased by 27.1 (18.8-34.9) beats/min. We found no significant differences in acral skin perfusion during walking exercise between the patients and control group. Conclusions. In patients with PAD, blood pressure increased continuously and significantly when walking to MCD (dynamic exercise). The level of increase in blood pressure was similar to that caused in response to isometric exercise.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available