4.5 Article

Individual variability in cardiac biomarker release after 30 min of high-intensity rowing in elite and amateur athletes

期刊

APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY NUTRITION AND METABOLISM
卷 40, 期 9, 页码 951-958

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/apnm-2015-0055

关键词

exercise; cTnI; NT-proBNP; athletic status; rowing; elite athletes; amateur athletes

资金

  1. National Plan for Research, Development and Innovation (R + D + i) MICINN [DEP 2010-16767]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study had two objectives: (i) to examine individual variation in the pattern of cardiac troponin I (cTnI) and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) release in response to high-intensity rowing exercise, and (ii) to establish whether individual heterogeneity in biomarker appearance was influenced by athletic status (elite vs. amateur). We examined cTnI and NT-proBNP in 18 elite and 14 amateur rowers before and 5 min, 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 h after a 30-min maximal rowing test. Compared with pre-exercise levels, peak postexercise cTnI (pre: 0.014 +/- 0.030 mu g.L-1; peak post: 0.058 +/- 0.091 mu g.L-1; p = 0.000) and NT-proBNP (pre: 15 +/- 11 ng.L-1; peak post: 31 +/- 19 ng.L-1; p = 0.000) were elevated. Substantial individual heterogeneity in peak and time-course data was noted for cTnI. Peak cTnI exceeded the upper reference limit (URL) in 9 elite and 3 amateur rowers. No rower exceeded the URL for NT-proBNP. Elite rowers had higher baseline (0.019 +/- 0.038 vs. 0.008 +/- 0.015 mu g.L-1; p = 0.003) and peak postexercise cTnI (0.080 +/- 0.115 vs. 0.030 +/- 0.029 mu g.L-1; p = 0.022) than amateur rowers, but the change with exercise was similar between groups. There were no significant differences in baseline and peak postexercise NT-proBNP between groups. In summary, marked individuality in the cTnI response to a short but high-intensity rowing bout was observed. Athletic status did not seem to affect the change in cardiac biomarkers in response to high-intensity exercise.

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