Pascal Bauer, Lutz Kraushaar, Sophie Hoelscher, Rebecca Weber, Ebru Akdogan, Stanislav Keranov, Oliver Dörr, Holger Nef, Christian W Hamm, Astrid Most
{"title":"专业运动员的血压反应和血管功能及其对照。","authors":"Pascal Bauer, Lutz Kraushaar, Sophie Hoelscher, Rebecca Weber, Ebru Akdogan, Stanislav Keranov, Oliver Dörr, Holger Nef, Christian W Hamm, Astrid Most","doi":"10.1055/a-1400-1897","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Workload-indexed blood pressure response (wiBPR) to exercise has been shown to be superior to peak systolic blood pressure (SBP) in predicting mortality in healthy men. Thus far, however, markers of wiBPR have not been evaluated for athletes and the association with vascular function is unclear. We examined 95 male professional athletes (26±5 y) and 30 male controls (26±4 y). We assessed vascular functional parameters at rest and wiBPR with a graded bicycle ergometer test and compared values for athletes with those of controls. Athletes had a lower pulse wave velocity (6.4±0.9 vs. 7.2±1.5 m/s, p=0.001) compared to controls. SBP/Watt slope (0.34±0.13 vs. 0.44±0.12 mmHg/W), SBP/MET slope (6.2±1.8 vs. 7.85±1.8 mmHg/MET) and peak SBP/Watt ratio (0.61±0.12 vs. 0.95±0.17 mmHg/W) were lower in athletes than in controls (p<0.001). The SBP/Watt and SBP/MET slope in athletes were comparable to the reference values, whereas the peak SBP/Watt-ratio was lower. All vascular functional parameters measured were not significantly correlated to the wiBPR in either athletes or controls. In conclusion, our findings indicate the potential use of the SBP/Watt and SBP/MET slope in pre-participation screening of athletes. Further, vascular functional parameters, measured at rest, were unrelated to the wiBPR in athletes and controls.</p>","PeriodicalId":74857,"journal":{"name":"Sports medicine international open","volume":"5 2","pages":"E45-E52"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/a-1400-1897","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Blood Pressure Response and Vascular Function of Professional Athletes and Controls.\",\"authors\":\"Pascal Bauer, Lutz Kraushaar, Sophie Hoelscher, Rebecca Weber, Ebru Akdogan, Stanislav Keranov, Oliver Dörr, Holger Nef, Christian W Hamm, Astrid Most\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-1400-1897\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Workload-indexed blood pressure response (wiBPR) to exercise has been shown to be superior to peak systolic blood pressure (SBP) in predicting mortality in healthy men. Thus far, however, markers of wiBPR have not been evaluated for athletes and the association with vascular function is unclear. We examined 95 male professional athletes (26±5 y) and 30 male controls (26±4 y). We assessed vascular functional parameters at rest and wiBPR with a graded bicycle ergometer test and compared values for athletes with those of controls. Athletes had a lower pulse wave velocity (6.4±0.9 vs. 7.2±1.5 m/s, p=0.001) compared to controls. SBP/Watt slope (0.34±0.13 vs. 0.44±0.12 mmHg/W), SBP/MET slope (6.2±1.8 vs. 7.85±1.8 mmHg/MET) and peak SBP/Watt ratio (0.61±0.12 vs. 0.95±0.17 mmHg/W) were lower in athletes than in controls (p<0.001). The SBP/Watt and SBP/MET slope in athletes were comparable to the reference values, whereas the peak SBP/Watt-ratio was lower. All vascular functional parameters measured were not significantly correlated to the wiBPR in either athletes or controls. In conclusion, our findings indicate the potential use of the SBP/Watt and SBP/MET slope in pre-participation screening of athletes. Further, vascular functional parameters, measured at rest, were unrelated to the wiBPR in athletes and controls.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74857,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sports medicine international open\",\"volume\":\"5 2\",\"pages\":\"E45-E52\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/a-1400-1897\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sports medicine international open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1400-1897\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/3/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sports medicine international open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1400-1897","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9
摘要
工作负荷指数血压反应(wiBPR)在预测健康男性死亡率方面优于峰值收缩压(SBP)。然而,到目前为止,wiBPR的标志物尚未对运动员进行评估,其与血管功能的关系尚不清楚。我们研究了95名男性职业运动员(26±5岁)和30名男性对照组(26±4岁)。我们通过分级自行车测力仪测试评估了休息时的血管功能参数和wiBPR,并将运动员和对照组的数值进行了比较。与对照组相比,运动员的脉搏波速度较低(6.4±0.9 vs. 7.2±1.5 m/s, p=0.001)。运动员的收缩压/瓦特斜率(0.34±0.13比0.44±0.12 mmHg/W)、收缩压/MET斜率(6.2±1.8比7.85±1.8 mmHg/MET)和峰值收缩压/瓦特比(0.61±0.12比0.95±0.17 mmHg/W)均低于对照组(p
Blood Pressure Response and Vascular Function of Professional Athletes and Controls.
Workload-indexed blood pressure response (wiBPR) to exercise has been shown to be superior to peak systolic blood pressure (SBP) in predicting mortality in healthy men. Thus far, however, markers of wiBPR have not been evaluated for athletes and the association with vascular function is unclear. We examined 95 male professional athletes (26±5 y) and 30 male controls (26±4 y). We assessed vascular functional parameters at rest and wiBPR with a graded bicycle ergometer test and compared values for athletes with those of controls. Athletes had a lower pulse wave velocity (6.4±0.9 vs. 7.2±1.5 m/s, p=0.001) compared to controls. SBP/Watt slope (0.34±0.13 vs. 0.44±0.12 mmHg/W), SBP/MET slope (6.2±1.8 vs. 7.85±1.8 mmHg/MET) and peak SBP/Watt ratio (0.61±0.12 vs. 0.95±0.17 mmHg/W) were lower in athletes than in controls (p<0.001). The SBP/Watt and SBP/MET slope in athletes were comparable to the reference values, whereas the peak SBP/Watt-ratio was lower. All vascular functional parameters measured were not significantly correlated to the wiBPR in either athletes or controls. In conclusion, our findings indicate the potential use of the SBP/Watt and SBP/MET slope in pre-participation screening of athletes. Further, vascular functional parameters, measured at rest, were unrelated to the wiBPR in athletes and controls.