| Literature DB >> 29483876 |
Daniele J Feriani1,2, Hélio J Coelho-Júnior2, Juliana C M F de Oliveira1, Maria A Delbin3, Cristiano T Mostarda4, Paulo M M Dourado5, Érico C Caperuto1, Maria C C Irigoyen5, Bruno Rodrigues2.
Abstract
Myocardial infarction (MI) remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Exercise training and pharmacological treatments are important strategies to minimize the deleterious effects of MI. However, little is known about the effects of resistance training combined with pyridostigmine bromide (PYR) treatment on cardiac and autonomic function, as well as on the inflammatory profile after MI. Thus, in the present study, male Wistar rats were randomly assigned into: control (Cont); sedentary infarcted (Inf); PYR - treated sedentary infarcted rats (Inf+P); infarcted rats undergoing resistance exercise training (Inf+RT); and infarcted rats undergoing PYR treatment plus resistance training (Inf+RT+P). After 12 weeks of resistance training (15-20 climbs per session, with a 1-min rest between each climb, at a low to moderate intensity, 5 days a week) and/or PYR treatment (0.14 mg/mL of drink water), hemodynamic function, autonomic modulation, and cytokine expressions were evaluated. We observed that 3 months of PYR treatment, either alone or in combination with exercise, can improve the deleterious effects of MI on left ventricle dimensions and function, baroreflex sensitivity, and autonomic parameters, as well as systemic and tissue inflammatory profile. Furthermore, additional benefits in a maximal load test and anti-inflammatory state of skeletal muscle were found when resistance training was combined with PYR treatment. Thus, our findings suggest that the combination of resistance training and PYR may be a good therapeutic strategy since they promote additional benefits on skeletal muscle anti-inflammatory profile after MI.Entities:
Keywords: autonomic modulation; inflammation; myocardial infarction; pyridostigmine bromide; resistance training
Year: 2018 PMID: 29483876 PMCID: PMC5816065 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2018.00053
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.566
Figure 1Maximal load test (MLT). Control rats (Con); Sedentary infarcted rats (Inf); Sedentary infarcted rats treated with pyridostigmine (Inf+P); infarcted rats submitted to resistance exercise training (Inf+RT); and infarcted rats submitted to treatment with pyridostigmine and resistance exercise training (Inf+RT+P); Values expressed as mean ± SEM; a, P < 0.05 vs. Con; b, P < 0.05 vs. Inf; c, P < 0.05 vs. Inf+P; d, P < 0.05 vs. Inf+RT; e, P < 0.05 vs. Baseline.
Echocardiographic evaluations.
| MI area (%) | Baseline | – | 44.4 ± 3 | 39.5 ± 8 | 40.1 ± 2 | 44.3 ± 4 |
| Final | – | 45.6 ± 4 | 15.3 ± 2 | 44.7 ± 5 | 27.3 ± 2 | |
| LV mass (g) | Baseline | 1.07 ± 0.02 | 1.15 ± 0.04 | 1.17 ± 0.04 | 1.11 ± 0.05 | 1.12 ± 0.06 |
| Final | 1.00 ± 0.05 | 1.42 ± 0.05 | 1.26 ± 0.04 | 1.55 ± 0.06 | 1.29 ± 0.04 | |
| LVDD (cm) | Baseline | 0.62 ± 0.02 | 0.83 ± 0.02 | 0.87 ± 0.05 | 0.84 ± 0.02 | 0.85 ± 0.06 |
| Final | 0.69 ± 0.02 | 0.97 ± 0.04 | 0.80 ± 0.01 | 0.87 ± 0.05 | 0.89 ± 0.04 | |
| RWT | Baseline | 0.39 ± 0.04 | 0.35 ± 0.02 | 0.41 ± 0.04 | 0.43 ± 0.05 | 0.44 ± 0.02 |
| Final | 0.45 ± 0.03 | 0.24 ± 0.04 | 0.46 ± 0.04 | 0.48 ± 0.04 | 0.49 ± 0.02 | |
| EF (%) | Baseline | 40 ± 3 | 28 ± 2 | 25 ± 2 | 27 ± 3 | 26 ± 4 |
| Final | 38 ± 1 | 26 ± 3 | 34 ± 2 | 29 ± 4 | 35 ± 3 | |
| EA | Baseline | 1.55 ± 0.11 | 2.77 ± 0.14 | 2.70 ± 0.17 | 2.75 ± 0.14 | 2.73 ± 0.13 |
| Final | 1.57 ± 0.09 | 2.97 ± 0.19 | 1.66 ± 0.15 | 2.12 ± 0.11 | 1.54 ± 0.17 |
Values expressed as mean ± SEM. Two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni posttest. MI – myocardial infarction;
LV mass, left ventricle mass; RWT, relative wall thickness; EF, ejection fraction; EA, E wave A wave ratio; a, P < 0.05 vs. Con; b, P < 0.05 vs. Inf; c, P < 0.05 vs. Inf+P; d, P < 0.05 vs. Inf+RT; e, P < 0.05 vs. Baseline.
Hemodynamic and Baroreflex Sensitivity parameters.
| SAP (mmHg) | 116 ± 8 | 109 ± 5 | 119 ± 7 | 124 ± 4 | 129 ± 9 |
| DAP (mmHg) | 78 ± 4 | 75 ± 8 | 82 ± 9 | 85 ± 5 | 87 ± 8 |
| MAP (mmHg) | 94 ± 5 | 88 ± 7 | 103 ± 9 | 95 ± 7 | 98 ± 8 |
| HR (bpm) | 327 ± 8 | 351 ± 12 | 338 ± 10 | 355 ± 14 | 319 ± 9 |
| TR (bpm/mmHg) | 3.12 ± 0.21 | 1.43 ± 0.24 | 2.84 ± 0.32 | 2.08 ± 0.17 | 2.95 ± 0.22 |
| BR (bpm/mmHg) | −2.34 ± 0.04 | −1.27 ± 0.03 | −2.12 ± 0.05 | −2.14 ± 0.02 | −2.11 ± 0.07 |
Values expressed as mean ± SEM. Two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni posttest. SAP, systolic arterial pressure; DAP, diastolic arterial pressure; MAP, mean arterial pressure; HR, heart rate; TR, tachycardic response; BR, bradycardic response; a, P < 0.05 vs. Con; b, P < 0.05 vs. Inf.
Figure 2Systolic arterial pressure variability (Var-SAP). LF, Low frequency band. Control rats (Con); Sedentary infarcted rats (Inf); Sedentary infarcted rats treated with pyridostigmine (Inf+P); infarcted rats submitted to resistance exercise training (Inf+RT); and infarcted rats submitted to treatment with pyridostigmine and resistance exercise training (Inf+RT+P); Values expressed as mean ± SEM; a, P < 0.05 vs. Con; b, P < 0.05 vs. Inf; c, P < 0.05 vs. Inf+P; d, P < 0.05 vs. Inf+RT.
Sympathetic (ST), vagal tonus (VT), and intrinsic heart rate (IHR).
| ST (bpm) | 40 ± 7 | 69 ± 8 | 38 ± 6 | 50 ± 4 | 32 ± 7 |
| VT (bpm) | 64 ± 9 | 31 ± 7 | 87 ± 9 | 49 ± 6 | 89 ± 10 |
| IHR (bpm) | 355 ± 10 | 357 ± 18 | 375 ± 14 | 364 ± 9 | 372 ± 10 |
Values expressed as mean ± SEM. Two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni posttest. a, P < 0.05 vs. Con; b, P < 0.05 vs. Inf; c, P < 0.05 vs. Inf+P; d, P < 0.05 vs. Inf+RT.
Inflammatory markers.
| IL-6 (pg/mg prot) | 1.67 ± 0.02 | 1.92 ± 0.06 | 0.65 ± 0.03 | 1.57 ± 0.08 | 0.59 ± 0.03 |
| IL-10 (pg/mg prot) | 0.18 ± 0.02 | 0.12 ± 0.01 | 0.27 ± 0.05 | 0.19 ± 0.04 | 0.29 ± 0.03 |
Values expressed as mean ± SEM. Two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni posttest. IL, Interleukin; a, P < 0.05 vs. Con; b, P < 0.05 vs. Inf; c, P < 0.05 vs. Inf+P; d, P < 0.05 vs. Inf+RT.
Figure 3Left ventricle inflammatory profile expressed in pg/mg prot. Control rats (Con); Sedentary infarcted rats (Inf); Sedentary infarcted rats treated with pyridostigmine (Inf+P); infarcted rats submitted to resistance exercise training (Inf+RT); and infarcted rats submitted to treatment with pyridostigmine and resistance exercise training (Inf+RT+P); Values expressed as mean ± SEM; a, P < 0.05 vs. Con; b, P < 0.05 vs. Inf; c, P < 0.05 vs. Inf+P; d, P < 0.05 vs. Inf+RT.
Figure 4Muscle inflammatory profile expressed in pg/mg prot. Control rats (Con); Sedentary infarcted rats (Inf); Sedentary infarcted rats treated with pyridostigmine (Inf+P); infarcted rats submitted to resistance exercise training (Inf+RT); and infarcted rats submitted to treatment with pyridostigmine and resistance exercise training (Inf+RT+P); Values expressed as mean ± SEM; a, P < 0.05 vs. Con; b, P < 0.05 vs. Inf; c, P < 0.05 vs. Inf+P; d, P < 0.05 vs. Inf+RT.