Blood pressure monitoring · 2021
A brief experimental examination of post-exercise hypotension and the impact of calculation method.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nguyen Cindy H, Thomas Scott H, Bentley Danielle C
Аннотация
PURPOSE: There is great variability in the reported values of post-exercise hypotension (PEH), with inconsistent calculation methods employed across primary research. This study aimed to explore the influence of the mathematical calculation method on PEH variability, with the hypothesis that the method of identifying the lowest single reduction point (LSRP) would yield false-positive results.
METHODS: Young, normotensive (108 ± 7/69 ± 5 mmHg), apparently healthy, male (n = 20) were included in this study. Participants completed three random-order experimental sessions, with blood pressure and heart rate measured before (10 min) and after (30 min) an acute bout of either isometric handgrip exercise, aerobic cycling, or a nonexercise control. Three PEH calculation methods were analyzed: LSRP, 30-min average across the full post-exercise recovery, and 15-min binned averages with two recovery windows (0-15 min, 15-30 min).
RESULTS: The only calculation method to consistently identify PEH was the LSRP method, which identified PEH for SBP, DBP, and mean arterial pressure, across handgrip exercise, aerobic cycling, and even nonexercise control (P < 0.001). All other calculation methods inconsistently identified PEH across experimental sessions, supporting the hypothesis that LSRP inaccurately overreports PEH.
CONCLUSION: Mathematical calculation method appears to be one source of variability contributing to the inconsistency in reported PEH among young, healthy males. This brief experimental examination reveals that the LSRP method should be avoided as it inaccurately overreports PEH. Alternatively, binned averages of smaller time windows across the recovery period may be a potentially advantageous approach and require further examination to determine to ideal level of granularity.
METHODS: Young, normotensive (108 ± 7/69 ± 5 mmHg), apparently healthy, male (n = 20) were included in this study. Participants completed three random-order experimental sessions, with blood pressure and heart rate measured before (10 min) and after (30 min) an acute bout of either isometric handgrip exercise, aerobic cycling, or a nonexercise control. Three PEH calculation methods were analyzed: LSRP, 30-min average across the full post-exercise recovery, and 15-min binned averages with two recovery windows (0-15 min, 15-30 min).
RESULTS: The only calculation method to consistently identify PEH was the LSRP method, which identified PEH for SBP, DBP, and mean arterial pressure, across handgrip exercise, aerobic cycling, and even nonexercise control (P < 0.001). All other calculation methods inconsistently identified PEH across experimental sessions, supporting the hypothesis that LSRP inaccurately overreports PEH.
CONCLUSION: Mathematical calculation method appears to be one source of variability contributing to the inconsistency in reported PEH among young, healthy males. This brief experimental examination reveals that the LSRP method should be avoided as it inaccurately overreports PEH. Alternatively, binned averages of smaller time windows across the recovery period may be a potentially advantageous approach and require further examination to determine to ideal level of granularity.