4.4 Article

Cardiovascular adjustments in breath-hold diving: comparison between divers and non-divers in simulated dynamic apnoea

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 112, Issue 2, Pages 543-554

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-011-2006-0

Keywords

Bradycardia; Cardiac output; Myocardial performance

Funding

  1. University of Cagliari
  2. Banco di Sardegna Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The diving response is the sequence of cardiovascular, respiratory and metabolic adjustments produced by apnoea and further strengthened by cooling of the facial area and/or hypoxia. This study aimed at comparing the cardiovascular response to diving of trained divers with that of a control group. In this order, 14 trained divers were compared with 14 non-divers. By means of impedance cardiography and continuous monitoring of arterial pressure, hemodynamic data were collected during three different experimental sessions. Each session included a cycleergometer exercise against a workload of 0.5 W kg(-1) of body mass, pedalling in a steady-state condition. During exercise, each subject randomly accomplished 40 s of breath-hold exercise with face immersion (test A) or in air (test B). A control exercise test with normal breathing (test C) was also performed. Divers showed a faster onset of brady-cardic response (ANOVA, P < 0.01) and a faster adjustment in systemic vascular resistance (P < 0.001 for divers vs. controls) than did non-divers. Moreover, cardiac output decreased only in divers during the first phase of test A (P < 0.01 for divers vs. controls). The most striking findings were that divers showed a more rapid cardiovascular adjustment with respect to controls, in particular in heart rate and systemic vascular resistance; moreover, with continued apnoea, a delayed increase in myocardial performance and stroke volume occurred and obscured the cardiovascular effects of the diving response.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available