4.3 Article

Impaired muscle oxygen transfer in patients with chronic renal failure

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.2001.280.4.R1240

关键词

chronic renal failure; exercise; oxygen transport; nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy; intracellular partial pressure of oxygen

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR-02305] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We hypothesized that impaired O-2 transport plays a role in limiting exercise in patients with chronic renal failure (CRF). Six CRF patients (25 +/- 6 yr) and six controls (24 +/- 6 yr) were examined twice during incremental single-leg isolated quadriceps exercise. Leg O-2 delivery ((Q) over dot O-2leg) and leg O-2 uptake ((V) over dot O-2leg) were obtained when subjects breathed gas of three inspired O-2 fractions (FIO2) (0.13, 0.21, and 1.0). On a different day, myoglobin O-2 saturation and muscle bioenergetics were measured by proton and phosphorus magnetic resonance spectroscopy. CRF patients, but not controls, showed O-2 supply dependency of peak (V) over dot O-2 ((V) over dot O-2peak) by a proportional relationship between peak (V) over dot O-2leg at each inspired O-2 fraction (0.59 +/- 0.20, 0.47 +/- 0.10, 0.43 +/- 0.10 l/min, respectively) and 1) work rate (933 +/- 372, 733 +/- 163, 667 +/- 207 g), 2) (Q) over dot O-2leg (0.80 +/- 0.20, 0.64 +/- 0.10, 0.59 +/- 0.10 l/min), and 3) cell PO2 (6.3 +/- 5.4, 1.7 +/- 1.3, 1.2 +/- 0.7 mmHg). CRF patients breathing 100% O-2 and controls breathing 21% O-2 had similar peak (Q) over dot O-2leg (0.80 +/- 0.20 vs. 0.79 +/- 0.10 l/min) and similar peak (V) over dot O-2leg (0.59 +/- 0.20 vs. 0.57 +/- 0.10 l/min). However, mean capillary PO2 (47.9 +/- 4.0 vs. 38.2 +/- 4.6 mmHg) and the capillary-to-myocite gradient (40.7 +/- 6.2 vs. 34.4 +/- 4.0 mmHg) were both higher in CRF patients than in controls (P< 0.03 each). We conclude that low muscle O-2 conductance, but not limited mitochondrial oxidative capacity, plays a role in limiting exercise tolerance in these patients.

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

4.3
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