4.5 Article

Underwater study of arterial blood pressure in breath-hold divers

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 107, 期 5, 页码 1526-1531

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.91438.2008

关键词

underwater sphygmomanometer; apnea; diving

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sieber A, L'Abbate A, Passera M, Garbella E, Benassi A, Bedini R. Underwater study of arterial blood pressure in breath-hold divers. J Appl Physiol 107: 1526-1531, 2009. First published August 20, 2009; doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.91438.2008.-Knowledge regarding arterial blood pressure (ABP) values during breath-hold diving is scanty. It derives from a few reports of measurements performed at the water's surface, showing slight or no increase in ABP, and from a single study of two simulated deep breath-hold dives in a hyperbaric chamber. Simulated dives showed an increase in ABP to values considered life threatening by standard clinical criteria. For the first time, using a novel noninvasive subaquatic sphygmomanometer, we successfully measured ABP in 10 healthy elite breath-hold divers at a depth of 10 m of freshwater (mfw). ABP was measured in dry conditions, at the surface (head-out immersion), and twice at a depth of 10 mfw. Underwater measurements of ABP were obtained in all subjects. Each measurement lasted 50-60 s and was accomplished without any complications or diver discomfort. In the 10 subjects as a whole, mean ABP values were 124/93 mmHg at the surface and 123/94 mmHg at a depth of 10 mfw. No significant statistical differences were found when blood pressure measurements at the water surface were compared with breath-hold diving conditions at a depth of 10 mfw. No systolic blood pressure values > 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure values > 115 mmHg were recorded. In conclusion, direct measurements of ABP during apnea diving showed no or only mild increases in ABP. However, our results cannot be extended over environmental conditions different from those of the present study.

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