4.5 Review

'Warm-up Angina': harnessing the benefits of exercise and myocardial ischaemia

期刊

HEART
卷 100, 期 2, 页码 106-114

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2013-304187

关键词

-

资金

  1. British Heart Foundation [FS/11/90/29087]
  2. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre
  3. St Thomas' National Health Service Foundation Trust
  4. King's College London
  5. MRC [MR/J007501/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. British Heart Foundation [FS/11/90/29087] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. Medical Research Council [MR/J007501/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The phenomenon of warm-up angina was first noted over 200 years ago. It describes the curious observation whereby exercise-induced ischaemia on second effort is significantly reduced or even abolished if separated from first effort by a brief rest period. However, the precise mechanism via which this cardio-protection occurs remains uncertain. Three possible explanations for reduced myocardial ischaemia on second effort include: first, an improvement in myocardial perfusion; second, increased myocardial resistance to ischaemia similar to ischaemic preconditioning; and third, reduced cardiac work through better ventricular-vascular coupling. Obtaining accurate coronary physiological measurements in the catheter laboratory throughout exercise demands a complex research protocol. In the 1980s, studies into warm-up angina relied on great cardiac vein thermo-dilution to estimate coronary blood flow. This technique has subsequently been shown to be inaccurate. However exercise physiology in the catheter laboratory has recently been resurrected with the advent of coronary artery wires that allow continuous measurement of distal coronary artery pressure and blood flow velocity. This review summarises the intriguing historical background to warm-up angina, and provides a concise critique of the important studies investigating mechanisms behind this captivating cardio-protective phenomenon.

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