4.5 Article

Biochemical and functional abnormalities of left and right ventricular function after ultra-endurance exercise

期刊

HEART
卷 94, 期 7, 页码 860-866

出版社

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/hrt.2006.101063

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: There is evidence that ultra-endurance exercise causes myocardial injury. The extent and duration of these changes remains unresolved. Recent reports have speculated that structural adaptations to exercise, particularly of the right ventricle, may predispose to tachyarrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. Objective: To quantify the extent and duration of post-exercise cardiac injury with particular attention to right ventricular (RV) dysfunction. Methods: 27 athletes (20 male, 7 female) were tested 1 week before, immediately after and 1 week after an ultra-endurance triathlon. Tests included cardiac troponin I (cTnI), B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and comprehensive echocardiographic assessment. Results: 26 athletes completed the race and testing procedures. Post-race, cTnI was raised in 15 athletes (58%) and the mean value for the entire cohort increased (0.17 vs 0.49 mu g/l, p<0.01). BNP rose in every athlete and the mean increased significantly (12.2 vs 42.5 ng/l, p<0.001). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was unchanged (60.4% vs 57.5%, p = 0.09), but integrated systolic strain decreased (16.9% vs 15.1%, p<0.01). New regional wall motion abnormalities developed in seven athletes (27%) and LVEF was reduced in this subgroup (57.8% vs 45.9%, p<0.001). RV function was reduced in the entire cohort with decreases in fractional area change (0.47 vs 0.39, p<0.01) and tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (21.8 vs 19.1 mm, p<0.01). At follow-up, all variables returned to baseline except in one athlete where RV dysfunction persisted. Conclusion: Myocardial damage occurs during intense ultra-endurance exercise and, in particular, there is a significant reduction in RV function. Almost all abnormalities resolve within 1 week.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据