4.4 Article

Endothelium-dependent vasodilation is associated with exercise capacity in smokers and non-smokers

期刊

VASCULAR MEDICINE
卷 15, 期 2, 页码 119-125

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1358863X09358750

关键词

exercise testing; flow-mediated vasodilation; smoking; vascular function

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [T32 HL069770-06A1, T32 HL069770] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Smoking is an established cardiovascular risk factor that impairs endothelial function and reduces exercise capacity. Peripheral vascular endothelial function correlates with exercise capacity, but whether this association prevails in smokers is unknown. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the association between endothelial function and exercise capacity in chronic smokers and non-smoking controls. Brachial artery flow-mediated dilation (FMD, endothelium-dependent) following 5 minutes of upper arm occlusion was compared in 26 smokers (age 58 +/- 2 years; 15 female; BMI (body mass index) = 28 +/- 1) and 39 non-smokers (age 58 +/- 2 years; 24 female; BMI = 28 +/- 1) using ultrasound. Exercise treadmill time (ETT) was recorded from a standard Bruce protocol during symptom limited stress testing. There was found to be a significant positive association between FMD and ETT in smokers (r = 0.60, p < 0.05) and non-smokers (r = 0.28, p < 0.05). FMD was significantly lower in smokers versus non-smokers (8.9 +/- 0.9 vs 12.6 +/- 0.7%, p < 0.05). ETT was significantly lower in smokers (425 +/- 35 seconds) versus non-smokers (522 +/- 25 seconds, p < 0.05). After adjusting for FMD, there were no longer group differences in ETT. When patients were matched according to FMD, there were no differences in ETT between smokers and non-smokers. In conclusion, peripheral endothelial dysfunction is a correlate of low exercise capacity in smokers and non-smokers alike. Future research is needed to examine if improving endothelial function will lead to concomitant increases in exercise capacity in chronic smokers.

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

4.4
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