4.2 Article

Limitations of respiratory muscle and vastus lateralis blood flow during continuous exercise

期刊

RESPIRATORY PHYSIOLOGY & NEUROBIOLOGY
卷 181, 期 3, 页码 302-307

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.resp.2012.04.001

关键词

Cycle exercise; Near infrared spectroscopy; Ventilation; Work of breathing

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  2. NSERC
  3. Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research (MSFHR)
  4. Canadian Thoracic Society
  5. Canadian Lung Association
  6. Department of Medicine, Queen's University and Kingston General Hospital
  7. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
  8. Canadian Stroke Network
  9. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  10. MSFHR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Measurement of regional blood flow to the respiratory muscles has traditionally been invasive. The blood flow index (BFI). a minimally invasive method using indocyanine green dye (ICG) and near infrared spectroscopy, allows assessment of within subject changes in regional blood flow. This study assessed regional BR to the vastus lateralis muscle (QBFI) and the superficial respiratory muscles in the seventh intercostal space (RMBFI). Eight healthy subjects cycled continuously at incrementally more difficulty stages to exhaustion. In our subjects. QBFI declined between 83% and 100% of maximal exertion (p = 0.002) and no statistically significant changes in RMBFI were seen despite steadily increasing ventilatory workloads. Post hoc pairwise comparisons demonstrated that QBFI at 83% work (0.015 mu moles s(-1) +/- 0.005) was significantly higher than at maximum work output (0.011 mu moles s(-1) +/- 0.004, p = 0.007). There were no other significant differences of QBFI between maximum work output and different levels of work. The current study suggests that respiratory and locomotor muscle blood flow during sub-maximal and maximal exertion is unable to match increasing workloads. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.2
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