| Literature DB >> 30252845 |
Angela Valentina Bisconti1, Michela Devoto1, Massimo Venturelli1,2, Randall Bryner3, I Mark Olfert3, Paul D Chantler3, F Esposito1,4.
Abstract
Vasomotor response is related to the capacity of the vessel to maintain vascular tone within a narrow range. Two main control mechanisms are involved: the autonomic control of the sympathetic neural drive (global control) and the endothelial smooth cells capacity to respond to mechanical stress by releasing vasoactive factors (peripheral control). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of respiratory muscle training (RMT) on vasomotor response, assessed by flow-mediated dilation (FMD) and heart rate variability, in young healthy females. The hypothesis was that RMT could enhance the balance between sympathetic and parasympathetic neural drive and reduce vessel shear stress. Thus, twenty-four women were randomly assigned to either RMT or SHAM group. Maximal inspiratory mouth pressure and maximum voluntary ventilation were utilized to assess the effectiveness of the RMT program, which consisted of three sessions of isocapnic hyperventilation/ week for eight weeks, (twenty-four training sessions). Heart rate variability assessed autonomic balance, a global factor regulating the vasomotor response. Endothelial function was determined by measuring brachial artery vasodilation normalized by shear rate (%FMD/SR). After RMT, but not SHAM, maximal inspiratory mouth pressure and maximum voluntary ventilation increased significantly (+31% and +16%, respectively). Changes in heart rate variability were negligible in both groups. Only RMT exhibited a significant increase in %FMD/SR (+45%; p<0.05). These data suggest a positive effect of RMT on vasomotor response that may be due to a reduction in arterial shear stress, and not through modulation of sympatho-vagal balance.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30252845 PMCID: PMC6155502 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203347
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Participants’ characteristics.
| RMT | SHAM | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Participants (n.) | 12 | 12 | - |
| Age (years) | 25 ± 8 | 29 ± 9 | 0.27 |
| Stature (m) | 1.67 ± 6.01 | 1.66 ± 8.00 | 0.70 |
| Body mass (kg) | 64.6 ± 10.4 | 61.5 ± 9.9 | 0.47 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 21 ± 3 | 19 ± 3 | 0.47 |
RMT, Respiratory muscle training. Data are expressed as mean ± SD.
Fig 1A schematic drawing of the study design.
Reliability and sensitivity of the main measurements.
| Parameter | Trial 1 | Trial 2 | ICC | SEM% | MDC95% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pulmonary function | FVC (l) | 4.00 ± 0.79 | 3.98 ± 0.79 | 0.999 | 0.6 | 2 |
| FEV1 (l) | 3.28 ± 0.62 | 3.26 ± 0.68 | 0.999 | 0.6 | 2 | |
| MIP (cmH2O) | 49.83 ± 6.71 | 49.83 ± 6.71 | 1.000 | 0.0 | 0 | |
| MVV (l·min-1) | 127 ± 22 | 132± 24 | 0.956 | 3.6 | 10 | |
| RV (l) | 0.70 ± 0.12 | 0.71 ± 0.11 | 0.978 | 2.3 | 6 | |
| Heart rate variability | HR rest (beats·min-1) | 66 ± 8 | 64 ± 9 | 0.940 | 3.2 | 9 |
| LF (n.u.) | 46.20 ± 20.51 | 45.98 ± 19.78 | 0.970 | 7.6 | 21 | |
| HF (n.u.) | 53.70 ± 21.67 | 53.92 ± 20.63 | 0.972 | 6.6 | 18 | |
| Endothelial function | Baseline diameter (cm) | 0.29 ± 0.04 | 0.29 ± 0.05 | 0.998 | 0.7 | 2 |
| Peak diameter (cm) | 0.32 ± 0.04 | 0.31 ± 0.04 | 0.999 | 0.4 | 1 | |
| Cumulative SR (s-1) | 288894 ± 38565 | 297529 ± 47360 | 0.603 | 9.2 | 26 |
FVC, forced vital capacity; FEV1, forced expiratory volume during the first second of the test; MIP, maximal inspiratory pressure; MVV, maximal voluntary ventilation; TLC, total lung capacity; RV, residual volume; LF, low frequency; HF, high frequency; HR, heart rate; n.u., normalized unit. ICC, interclass correlation coefficient; SEM, Standard Error of Measurement; MDC, minimum detectable change. Data are expressed as mean ± SD.
Pulmonary function parameters.
| RMT | SHAM | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre | %Pred | Post | %Pred | Pre | %Pred | Post | %Pred | |
| FVC (l) | 4.10 ± 0.14 | 101 ± 3 | 4.15 ± 0.16 | 102 ± 3 | 3.91± 0.2 | 103 ± 4 | 3.88 ± 0.2 | 104 ± 6 |
| FEV1 (l) | 3.37 ± 0.13 | 97 ± 2 | 3.45 ± 0.13 | 99 ± 2 | 3.18 ± 0.2 | 98 ± 3 | 3.17 ± 0.2 | 99 ± 3 |
| MIP (cmH2O) | 48 ± 4 | 63 ± 5*† | 52 ± 2 | 52 ± 2 | ||||
| MVV (l·min-1) | 134 ± 4 | 119 ± 2 | 155 ± 4*† | 131 ± 3 | 121 ± 6 | 116 ± 6 | 125 ± 7 | 108 ± 4 |
| TLC (l) | 4.71 ± 0.14 | 4.74 ± 0.14 | 4.70 ± 0.3 | 4.70 ± 0.3 | ||||
| RV (l) | 0.61 ± 0.07 | 77 ± 10 | 0.59 ± 0.05 | 74 ± 8 | 0.79 ± 0.05 | 103 ± 3 | 0.80 ± 0.04 | 104 ± 4 |
%Pred, percent predicted; FVC, forced vital capacity; FEV1, forced expiratory volume during the first second of the test; MIP, maximal inspiratory pressure; MVV, maximal voluntary ventilation; TLC, total lung capacity; RV, residual volume. Data are expressed as mean ± SE. *P<0.05 vs Pre. RMT, respiratory muscle training group; † P<0.05 Post-RMT vs Post-SHAM.
Heart rate variability data.
| RMT | SHAM | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre | Post | Pre | Post | |
| LF (n.u) | 44.66 ± 4.90 | 40.69 ± 4.95 | 47.65 ± 6.11 | 47.43 ± 5.78 |
| HF (n.u) | 55.41 ± 4.89 | 57.64 ± 5.45 | 52.06 ± 6.06 | 52.27 ± 5.74 |
| LF/HF | 1.00 ± 0.19 | 0.87 ± 0.22 | 1.36 ± 0.36 | 1.28 ± 0.32 |
| Resting HR (beats·min-1) | 65 ± 4 | 64± 3 | 68 ± 2 | 65 ± 3 |
HRV, heart rate variability; LF, low frequency; HF, high frequency; HR, heart rate; n.u, normalized unit; RMT, Respiratory muscle training group. Data are expressed as mean ± SE.
Fig 2Brachial artery flow-mediated dilation (FMD), expressed as percentage change from baseline (A), absolute values at peak diameter (B), cumulative SR (C), and brachial artery FMD normalized for cumulative SR (D) are shown. RMT, respiratory muscle training. Data are expressed as mean ± SE. *P<0.05 vs Pre; † P<0.05 vs Post SHAM.
Fig 3Post occlusion reactive hyperaemia, expressed as absolute blood flow (3A and 3B) and area under the curve (AUC, 3C) in RMT (respiratory muscle training) and SHAM group. The ↑ in proximity to zero represents the exact time of cuff release. Data are expressed as mean ± SE. *P<0.05 vs Pre. †P<0.05 vs Post SHAM.