4.5 Article

Arterial stiffness and sedentary lifestyle: Role of oxidative stress

期刊

VASCULAR PHARMACOLOGY
卷 79, 期 -, 页码 1-5

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.vph.2015.05.017

关键词

Exercise; Arterial stiffness; Oxidative stress; Isoprostanes

资金

  1. University of Chieti
  2. Italian Ministry of University and Research (PRIN) [2010JS3PMZ]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sedentary lifestyle is a risk factor for the development of cardiovascular disease, and leads to a quantifiable impairment in vascular function and arterial wall stiffening. We tested the hypothesis of oxidative stress as a determinant of arterial stiffness (AS) in physically inactive subjects, and challenged the reversibility of these processes after the completion of an eight-week, high-intensity exercise training (Er). AS was assessed before and after ET, measuring carotid to femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) with a Vicorder device. At baseline and after ET, participants performed urine collection and underwent fasting blood sampling. Urinary 8-iso-PGF(2 alpha), an in vivo marker of lipid peroxidation, total, HDL and LDL cholesterol, and triglyceride concentrations were measured. ET was associated with significantly reduced urinary 8-iso-PGF(2 alpha)(p < 0.0001) levels. PWV was significantly reduced after ET completion (p < 0.0001), and was directly related to urinary 8-iso-PGF(2 alpha)(Rho = 0.383, p = 0.021). After ET, cardiovascular fitness improved [peak oxygen consumption (p < 0.0001), peak heart rate (p < 0.0001)]. However, no improvement in lipid profile was observed, apart from a significant reduction of triglycerides (p = 0.022). PWV and triglycerides were significantly related (Rho = 0.466, p = 0.005) throughout the study period. PWV levels were also related to urinary 8-iso-PGF(2 alpha) in our previously sedentary subjects. We conclude that regular physical exercise may be a natural antioxidant strategy, lowering oxidant stress and thereby the AS degree. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.5
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