| Literature DB >> 31321007 |
Mohammad Reza Nakhaee1, Siyavash Joukar2, Mohammad Reza Zolfaghari1, Farzaneh Rostamzadeh3, Yaser Masoumi-Ardakani4, Maryam Iranpour5, Mozhdeh Nazari3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is an increasing popularity of waterpipe tobacco smoking (WTS) in youth and even in athletes worldwide. Despite the existence of evidence of the harmful effects of hookah smoke on various systems of the body, especially the cardiovascular system, its simultaneous effect with exercise training has not been well studied. We assessed the effects of WTS exposure with/without swimming exercise on blood pressure (BP), and heart histology and mechanical performance in male Wistar rats.Entities:
Keywords: Antioxidants; Cytokines; Exercise training; Left ventricular function; Smoking water pipes
Year: 2019 PMID: 31321007 PMCID: PMC6633068 DOI: 10.22122/ahj.v11i2.234
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Addict Health ISSN: 2008-4633
Figure 1Waterpipe tobacco smoking setup 1. The ceramic head of Ghalyan contains tobacco, 2. A Plexiglas chamber (8 mm thick), location of animals for the purpose of inhalation of tobacco smoke, 3. Fresh waterpipe air input, 4. Fresh waterpipe air output, 5. vacuum pump, 6. Electronic valve, 7. Time controller for the sequence of operation of the pump and valve
The values of blood pressure (BP), levels of plasma cotinine, and levels of malondialdehyde (MDA), glutathione peroxidase (GPx), superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase, tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α), and interleukins-1 β (IL-1β), 6, and 10 in the heart in the animal groups
| Groups Variables | CTL | S | Ex | S+ Ex |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cotinine (ng/ml) | 8.87 ± 0.48 | 23.20 ± 1.15 | 7.43 ± 0.59 | 18.97 ± 0.93[ |
| SBP (mmHg) | 135 ± 3 | 117.0 ± 8.6 | 130.0 ± 9.3 | 123.0 ± 4.8 |
| DBP (mmHg) | 104 ± 2 | 92.0 ± 6.5 | 91.0 ± 8.8 | 90.0 ± 6.6 |
| MAP (mmHg) | 119 ± 2 | 105.0 ± 7.3 | 110 ± 9 | 106.0 ± 5.6 |
| HR (bpm) | 170 ± 6 | 186 ± 15 | 190 ± 9 | 193 ± 11 |
| MDA (nmol/µg of total protein) | 1840 ± 218 | 2146 ± 85 | 1971 ± 218 | 2064 ± 182 |
| GPX (U/ng of total protein) | 10.64 ± 1.07 | 11.01 ± 1.20 | 12.11 ± 1.5 | 10.64 ± 1.10 |
| SOD (µg/ng of total protein) | 0.11 ± 0.03 | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 0.22 ± 0.03[ | 0.18 ± 0.01 |
| Catalase (nmol/min/mg pro) | 0.160 ± 0.008 | 0.130 ± 0.011 | 0.180 ± 0.008[ | 0.180 ± 0.012[ |
| TNF-α (ng/µg of total protein) | 2.19 ± 0.29 | 3.89 ± 0.20 | 2.072 ± 0.400[ | 2.27 ± 0.49[ |
| IL-10 (pg/ng of total protein ) | 1.68 ± 0.34 | 1.74 ± 0.31 | 2.06 ± 0.39 | 1.98 ± 0.58 |
| IL-1β (pg/µg of total protein) | 13.2 ± 0.7 | 15.9 ± 0.3 | 13.8 ± 1.4 | 14.6 ± 2.1 |
| IL-6 (ng/µg of total protein) | 0.62 ± 0.10 | 0.75 ± 0.10 | 0.55 ± 0.11 | 0.63 ± 0.12 |
Values are presented as mean ± standard error of mean (SEM). n = 6-7 in each group.
CTL: Control group; S: Waterpipe tobacco smoking group; Ex: Exercise training group; S + Ex: Waterpipe tobacco smoking + exercise training group; SBP: Systolic blood pressure; DBP: Diastolic blood pressure; MAP: Mean arterial pressure; HR: Heart rate; MDA: Malondialdehyde; GPx: Glutathione peroxidase; SOD: Superoxide dismutase; TNF-α: Tumor necrosis factor α; IL-10: Interleukin-10; IL-1β: Interleukin-1β; IL-6: Interleukin-6
P < 0.001 vs. control and exercise groups;
P < 0.001 vs. Waterpipe smoking groups;
P < 0.001 vs. other groups;
P < 0.05 vs. CTL and S groups;
P ˂ 0.05 vs. CTL;
P < 0.05 vs. S group
Figure 2+dp/dt maximum (Max dp/dt) (A) and -dp/dt maximum (Min dp/dt) (B) in different animal groups (n = 6-7) Values are expressed as mean ± SEM. CTL: Control group; S: Waterpipe tobacco smoking group; Ex: Exercise training group; S + Ex: Waterpipe tobacco smoking + exercise training group, #P < 0.01 vs. CTL and Ex groups; *P < 0.05 versus S + Ex group
Figure 3Contractility index (A) and Tau index (B) in different animal groups (n = 6-7) Values are expressed as mean ± SEM. CTL: Control group; S: Waterpipe tobacco smoking group; Ex: Exercise training group; S + Ex: Waterpipe tobacco smoking + exercise training group; A: *P < 0.05 vs. CTL group; #P < 0.01 vs. Ex and S + Ex groups; B: *P < 0.05 vs. other groups
Heart histopathological scores and the number animals with different degrees of injury in each group
| Groups | Pathological scores of hearts | Mean | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No change | Minimum | Mild | Moderate | Sever | ||
| CTL | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.2 |
| S | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 3.8[ |
| Ex | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.8 |
| S+ Ex | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2.2[ |
n = 5-6; CTL: Control; S: Smoking; Ex: Exercise; S + Ex: Smoking + Exercise;
P ˂ 0.01 vs. CTL and Ex groups;
P < 0.05 vs. S group;
P < 0.05 vs. CTL and Ex groups
0 = No change; 1 = Minimum (slight congestion and interstitial edema); 2 = Mild (small congestion and interstitial edema); 3 = Moderate (diffuse congestion and hypercontraction band, and/or with slight degree of leukocyte infiltration); 4 = Severe (hypereosinophilia, diffuse inflammatory process, and/or myofibrillar degeneration)
Figure 4Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained sections of heart tissue in different animal groups [a, CTL group heart sections showing normal appearance of cardiac myofibers; b, Ex group; c, S group; d, S + Ex group] ( ): Cellular hypertrophy; (….>): Congestion; ( ): Interstitial edema; ( ): Cellular degeneration along with inflammatory processes The magnification is × 40.