| Literature DB >> 25022361 |
Fernando Rodrigues, Daniele Jardim Feriani, Catarina Andrade Barboza, Marcos Elias Vergilino Abssamra, Leandro Yanase Rocha, Nicolle Martins Carrozi, Cristiano Mostarda, Diego Figueroa, Gabriel Inacio Honorato Souza, Kátia De Angelis, Maria Cláudia Irigoyen, Bruno Rodrigues1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that exercise training (ET) protects against the pathological remodeling and ventricular dysfunction induced by myocardial infarction (MI). However, it remains unclear whether the positive adjustments on baroreflex and cardiac autonomic modulations promoted by ET may afford a cardioprotective mechanism. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of aerobic ET, prior to MI, on cardiac remodeling and function, as well as on baroreflex sensitivity and autonomic modulation in rats.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25022361 PMCID: PMC4105517 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2261-14-84
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord ISSN: 1471-2261 Impact factor: 2.298
Maximal running speed speed (Km/h) in sedentary control rats (C, n = 8); trained control rats (TC, n = 8); sedentary rats submitted to myocardial infarction (I, n = 9), trained rats submitted to myocardial infarction (TI, n = 10)
| Initial | 1.20 ± 0.11 | 1.50 ± 0.06 | 1.20 ± 0.06 | 1.50 ± 0.06 |
| Final | 1.50 ± 0.06 | 2.40 ± 0.03#* | 1.50 ± 0.03 | 2.40 ± 0.05#*† |
| Post-MI/ | 1.50 ± 0.04 | 2.40 ± 0.05#* | 0.90 ± 0.04#$* | 1.20 ± 0.04$*† |
Values are expressed as mean ± SEM. Repeated-measures ANOVA. #p < 0.05 vs. initial evaluation in the same group; $p < 0.05 vs. final evaluation in the same group; *p < 0.05 vs. C; †p < 0.05 vs. I.
Echocardiographic parameters in sedentary control rats (C, n = 8); trained control rats (TC, n = 8); sedentary rats submitted to myocardial infarction (I, n = 9), trained rats submitted to myocardial infarction (TI, n = 10)
| | | | | |
| MI area (%) | ---- | ---- | 45 ± 3 | 42 ± 2 |
| LVmass (g) | 1.11 ± 0.03 | 1.62 ± 0.05* | 1.14 ± 0.05 | 1.65 ± 0.11*† |
| LVDD (cm) | 0.72 ± 0.02 | 0.74 ± 0.03 | 0.74 ± 0.02 | 0.76 ± 0.03 |
| RWT | 0.40 ± 0.01 | 0.53 ± 0.03* | 0.29 ± 0.01* | 0.51 ± 0.03*† |
| | | | | |
| FS (%) | 39 ± 1 | 41 ± 3 | 30 ± 2* | 38 ± 1† |
| EF (%) | 70.2 ± 0.9 | 76.1 ± 0.3* | 41.2 ± 1.1* | 52.4 ± 0.4*† |
| | | | | |
| E/A | 1.61 ± 0.11 | 1.67 ± 0.01 | 2.76 ± 0.20* | 1.81 ± 0.11† |
| IVRT (ms) | 29 ± 1 | 27 ± 1 | 29 ± 1 | 28 ± 3 |
| | | | | |
| MPI | 0.37 ± 0.03 | 0.15 ± 0.02* | 0.48 ± 0.03* | 0.18 ± 0.04*† |
Values are expressed as mean ± SEM. LVmass - left ventricular mass; LVDD - left ventricular end-diameter during diastole; RWT – relative wall thickness; FS – fractional shortening; EF – ejection fraction; E/A – E wave A wave ratio; IVRT- left ventricular isovolumetric relaxation time; MPI – myocardial performance index. ANOVA two-way (exercise training and myocardial infarction) analysis followed by the Bonferroni post-test. *p < 0.05 vs. C; †p < 0.05 vs. I.
Hemodynamic variables in sedentary control rats (C, n = 8); trained control rats (TC, n = 8); sedentary rats submitted to myocardial infarction (I, n = 9), trained rats submitted to myocardial infarction (TI, n = 10)
| SAP (mmHg) | 122 ± 2 | 115 ± 3 | 115 ± 3 | 117 ± 4 |
| DAP (mmHg) | 86 ± 3 | 85 ± 2 | 80 ± 3 | 84 ± 2 |
| MAP (mmHg) | 98 ± 3 | 95 ± 2 | 92 ± 2 | 95 ± 4 |
| HR (bpm) | 319 ± 5 | 295 ± 4* | 339 ± 9* | 331 ± 4 |
Values are expressed as mean ± SEM. SAP – systolic arterial pressure; DAP – diastolic arterial pressure; MAP – mean arterial pressure; HR – heart rate. ANOVA two-way (exercise training and myocardial infarction) analysis followed by the Bonferroni post-test. *p < 0.05 vs. C.
Figure 1Baroreflex sensitivity represented by tachycardic and bradycardic responses in sedentary control rats (C, n = 8); trained control rats (TC, n = 8); sedentary rats submitted to myocardial infarction (I, n = 9), trained rats submitted to myocardial infarction (TI, n = 10). Values are expressed as mean ± SEM. ANOVA two-way (exercise training and myocardial infarction) analysis followed by the Bonferroni post-test. *p < 0.05 vs. C; †p < 0.05 vs. I.
Pulse interval (PI) variability in time and frequency domains in sedentary control rats (C, n = 8); trained control rats (TC, n = 8); sedentary rats submitted to myocardial infarction (I, n = 9), trained rats submitted to myocardial infarction (TI, n = 10)
| SD (ms) | 11.1 ± 0.8 | 10.1 ± 1.2 | 9.0 ± 0.8 | 10.7 ± 1.4 |
| Variance (ms2) | 116.5 ± 17.2 | 132.6 ± 25.9 | 23.2 ± 3.7* | 107.8 ± 21.8† |
| RMSSD (ms2) | 6.6 ± 0.2 | 6.7 ± 0.7 | 4.3 ± 0.2* | 8.4 ± 0.6† |
| LF (%) | 26.7 ± 2.6 | 20.0 ± 1.9 | 14.9 ± 1.4* | 27.3 ± 3.3† |
| HF (%) | 73.2 ± 2.7 | 82.8 ± 3.2 | 85.1 ± 1.4 | 72.6 ± 3.3 |
| LF/HF | 0.38 ± 0.05 | 0.26 ± 0.03 | 0.18 ± 0.02* | 0.39 ± 0.06† |
Values are expressed as mean ± SEM. SD - standard deviation of the PI variability; RMSSD - root-mean square of differences of successive RR intervals; LF – low frequency band; HF – high frequency band; LF/HF – autonomic balance. ANOVA two-way (exercise training and myocardial infarction) analysis followed by the Bonferroni post-test. *p < 0.05 vs. C; †p < 0.05 vs. I.
Figure 2Low frequency (indicative of sympathetic modulation, panel A) and high frequency (indicative of parasympathetic modulation, panel B) bands of pulse interval variability in sedentary control rats (C, n = 8); trained control rats (TC, n = 8); sedentary rats submitted to myocardial infarction (I, n = 9), trained rats submitted to myocardial infarction (TI, n = 10). Values are expressed as mean ± SEM. ANOVA two-way (exercise training and myocardial infarction) analysis followed by the Bonferroni post-test. *p < 0.05 vs. C; †p < 0.05 vs. I.
Figure 3Pearson’s correlations between autonomic balance (LF/HF ratio) and: relative wall thickness (RWT, panel A) and fractional shortening (FS, panel B); as well as between high frequency band (HF) and: E/A ratio (panel C) and myocardial performance index (MPI, panel D).