4.4 Article

Left atrial mechanics and aortic stiffness following high intensity interval training: a randomised controlled study

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 120, 期 8, 页码 1855-1864

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-020-04416-3

关键词

Aortic stiffness; Left atrial mechanics; HIIT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose High intensity interval training (HIIT) has been shown to improve important health parameters, including aerobic capacity, blood pressure, cardiac autonomic modulation and left ventricular (LV) mechanics. However, adaptations in left atrial (LA) mechanics and aortic stiffness remain unclear. Methods Forty-one physically inactive males and females were recruited. Participants were randomised to either a 4-week HIIT intervention (n = 21) or 4-week control period (n = 20). The HIIT protocol consisted of 3 x 30-s maximal cycle ergometer sprints with a resistance of 7.5% body weight, interspersed with 2-min of active unloaded recovery, three times per week. Speckle tracking imaging of the LA and M-Mode tracing of the aorta was performed pre and post HIIT and control period. Results Following HIIT, there was significant improvement in LA mechanics, including LA reservoir (13.9 +/- 13.4%,p = 0.033), LA conduit (8.9 +/- 11.2%,p = 0.023) and LA contractile (5 +/- 4.5%,p = 0.044) mechanics compared to the control condition. In addition, aortic distensibility (2.1 +/- 2.7 cm(2) dyn(-1) 10(3),p = 0.031) and aortic stiffness index (- 2.6 +/- 4.6,p = 0.041) were improved compared to the control condition. In stepwise linear regression analysis, aortic distensibility change was significantly associated with LA stiffness changeR(2)of 0.613 (p = 0.002). Conclusion A short-term programme of HIIT was associated with a significant improvement in LA mechanics and aortic stiffness. These adaptations may have important health implications and contribute to the improved LV diastolic and systolic mechanics, aerobic capacity and blood pressure previously documented following HIIT.

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