| Literature DB >> 20454493 |
Michel Silva Reis1, Ross Arena, Ana Paula Deus, Rodrigo Polaquini Simões, Aparecida Maria Catai, Audrey Borghi-Silva.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A synchronism exists between the respiratory and cardiac cycles. However, the influence of the inspiratory muscle weakness in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on cardiac autonomic control is unknown. The purpose of the present investigation was to evaluate the influence of respiratory muscle strength on autonomic control in these patients.Entities:
Keywords: COPD; Heart-rate variability; Respiratory muscle strength; Respiratory sinusal arrhythmia
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20454493 PMCID: PMC2862698 DOI: 10.1590/S1807-59322010000400004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) ISSN: 1807-5932 Impact factor: 2.365
Demographic, anthropometric, and clinical characteristics for all groups.
| Variables | COPD (N = 10) | Control (N = 9) |
|---|---|---|
| Age (yrs) | 69 ± 9 | 64 ± 5 |
| Height (m) | 1.67 ± 0.08 | 1.71 ± 0.05 |
| Weight (kg) | 64 ± 9.0 | 75 ± 6.3 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 23 ± 3.3 | 25 ± 1.2 |
| FEV1 (% predict) | 41 ± 11 | 91 ± 20 |
| FVC (% predict) | 68 ± 13 | 102 ± 15 |
| FEV1/FVC | 59 ± 12 | 101 ± 7 |
| MIP (cmH2O) | 60 ± 9 | 103 ± 15 |
| MIP (% predict) | 63 ± 11 | 99 ± 17 |
| SpO2 (%) | 92 ± 3 | 96 ± 1 |
| RF (bpm) | 15 ± 4 | 12 ± 3 |
Values are means ± SD. COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; BMI: body mass index; EF: left ventricle ejection fraction; FEV1: forced expiratory volume in the first second; FEV1/FVC: forced expiratory volume in the first second to forced vital capacity ratio; MIP: maximal inspiratory pressure; SpO2: peripheral oxygen saturation; RF: respiratory frequency;
p<0.05: COPD vs. Control (unpaired Student’s t-test).
Figure 1Comparison of the heart-rate variability index obtained at rest for all groups. (A) RMSSD: the square root of the sum of the squares of differences between adjacent NN intervals; (B) SDNN: the standard deviation of NN intervals; (C) High frequency; and (D) Low Frequency.
I/E ratio, IE differences, and heart-rate variability during respiratory sinusal arrhythmia maneuver for the studied groups.
| COPD (n = 10) | Control (n = 9) | |
|---|---|---|
| E/I ratio | 1.1 ± 0.06 | 1.2 ± 0.1 |
| ΔIE | 7.0 ± 3.5 | 12.7 ± 4.2 |
| RMSSD | 18.3 ± 15.6 | 43.5 ± 27.9 |
| SDNN | 32.1 ± 21.2 | 63.8 ± 29.1 |
| LFab | 1052.7 ± 1538.3 | 3551.2 ± 3581.2 |
| HFab | 93.9 ± 153.8 | 626.8 ± 906.8 |
| LFun | 0.9 ± 0.03 | 0.8 ± 0.07 |
| HFun | 0.1 ± 0.03 | 0.2 ± 0.07 |
| LF/HF | 15.9 ± 15.3 | 11.3 ± 7.5 |
Values are means ± SD. COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; E/I ratio: expiratory/inspiratory ratio; ΔIE: inspiratory-expiratory differences; RMSSD: the square root of the sum of the squares of differences between adjacent NN intervals; SDNN: the standard deviation of NN intervals; LFab: low frequency in absolutes values; HFab: high frequency in absolutes values; LFun: low frequency in normalized units; HFun: high frequency in normalized units;
p<0.05: COPD vs. Control (unpaired Student’s t-test).
Figure 2Decomposition of the spectrum into single spectral components of very low frequency (VLF), low frequency (LF), and high frequency (HF) during the respiratory sinusal arrhythmia maneuver. (A) COPD patients; (B) Control group.
Figure 3Pearson correlation. Correlation between MIP and inspiratory-expiratory differences (I-E differences). (Legend: □ = COPD and + = Control).