4.2 Article

Hemodynamic effects of isometric exercise in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: Comparison with normal subjects

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR CARDIOLOGY
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 154-160

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1067/mnc.2003.9

关键词

cardiomyopathy; hemodynamics; hypertrophy; isometric exercise

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. We assessed the hemodynamic effects of isometric exercise by an ambulatory, radionuclide monitoring device (VEST) that measured left ventricular function in patients who had hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), with and without significant left ventricular outflow-tract obstruction at rest, compared with control subjects. Methods and Results. We studied 10 patients with obstructive HCM, 25 patients with nonobstructive HCM, and 11 control subjects. During VEST monitoring, all patients gripped a dynamometer at 75% of maximal strength for up to 5 minutes. End-diastolic, end-systolic, and stroke volumes; cardiac output; and systemic vascular resistance were expressed as a percentage of baseline. The mean exercise duration was similar among the 3 groups. During handgrip, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and cardiac output increased significantly and similarly, in the 3 groups. There was a significant difference in the lung activity between obstructive and nonobstructive HCM patients and control subjects (P <.001), with a fall in control subjects and no change in HCM patients, irrespective of obstruction. Control subjects showed a decrease in end-systolic volume (P = .02) and an increase in ejection fraction (P = .003) and stroke volume (P =.009), whereas these parameters did not change in HCNI patients, irrespective of obstruction. Systemic vascular resistance increased in obstructive (P = .02) and nonobstructive (P < .01) HCM patients but did not change in control subjects. Conclusions. Isometric exercise causes an abnormal and similar adaptation to load changes in obstructive and nonobstructive HCM patients, as compared with control subjects.

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