| Literature DB >> 35205030 |
Marijke Grau1, Benedikt Seeger1, Lukas Mozigemba1, Roland Roth1, Luca Baumgartner1, Hans-Georg Predel2, Wilhelm Bloch1, Fabian Tomschi1,3.
Abstract
Beneficial effects of (remote) ischemia preconditioning ((r)IPC), short episodes of blood occlusion and reperfusion, are well-characterized, but there is no consensus regarding the effectiveness of (r)IPC on exercise performance. Additionally, direct comparisons of IPC and rIPC but also differences between reflow modes, low reflow (LR) and high reflow (HR) in particular, are lacking, which were thus the aims of this study. Thirty healthy males conducted a performance test before and after five consecutive days with either IPC or rIPC maneuvers (n = 15 per group). This procedure was repeated after a two-week wash-out phase to test for both reflow conditions in random order. Results revealed improved exercise parameters in the IPC LR and to a lesser extent in the rIPC LR intervention. RBC deformability increased during both rIPC LR and IPC LR, respectively. Pulse wave velocity (PWV) and blood pressures remained unaltered. In general, deformability and PWV positively correlated with performance parameters. In conclusion, occlusion of small areas seems insufficient to affect large remote muscle groups. The reflow condition might influence the effectiveness of the (r)IPC intervention, which might in part explain the inconsistent findings of previous investigations. Future studies should now focus on the underlying mechanisms to explain this finding.Entities:
Keywords: blood pressure; blood reflow; ischemic preconditioning; performance; pulse wave velocity; red blood cell deformability; remote ischemic preconditioning
Year: 2022 PMID: 35205030 PMCID: PMC8869204 DOI: 10.3390/biology11020163
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biology (Basel) ISSN: 2079-7737
Figure 1Schematic representation of the study design. (A) Allocation of participants and general study overview and (B) overview of one intervention.
Figure 2Pre- and post-performance data of the respective interventions. Time to exhaustion before and after the low reflow (LR) and high reflow (HR) (A) rIPC intervention and (B) IPC intervention, respectively. Power at exhaustion before and after the LR and HR (C) rIPC and (D) IPC intervention, respectively. Lactate at exhaustion after the LR and HR (E) rIPC intervention and (F) IPC intervention, respectively. Data are shown as mean (SD); * p < 0.05 and *** p < 0.001.
Figure 3Pre- and post-performance data at the 2 and 4 mmol/L lactate thresholds of the respective interventions. (A) Performance (watt) and (B) time (seconds) at the 2 mmol/L threshold during the low reflow (LR) and high reflow (HR) rIPC interventions, respectively. (C) Performance (watt) and (D) time (seconds) at the 2 mmol/L threshold during the LR and HR IPC interventions, respectively. (E) Performance (watt) and (F) time (seconds) at the 4 mmol/L threshold during the low reflow (LR) and high reflow (HR) rIPC interventions, respectively. (G) Performance (watt) and (H) time (seconds) at the 4 mmol/L threshold during the LR and HR IPC interventions, respectively. Data are shown as mean (SD); * p < 0.05.
Figure 4Pre- and post-intervention values of pulse wave velocity. Pulse wave velocity before and after the (A) low reflow (LR) and high reflow (HR) rIPC and (B) IPC interventions, respectively. Data are shown as mean (SD).
Resting peripheral and central blood pressures (BP) for the different rIPC and IPC protocols. Data are shown as mean (SD).
| Peripheral BP | Pre | Post | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RR Sys (mmHg) | RR Dias (mmHg) | RR Sys (mmHg) | RR Dias (mmHg) | ||
|
| Low Reflow | 127.3 (9.5) | 70.7 (6.3) | 130.0 (14.8) | 71.6 (9.7) |
| High Reflow | 123.1 (9.5) | 68.6 (7.2) | 121.0 (9.5) | 69.1 (6.2) | |
|
| Low Reflow | 125.0 (7.1) | 69.7 (7.6) | 125.7 (7.6) | 68.6 (8.7) |
| High Reflow | 126.0 (12.7) | 69.0 (7.8) | 127.3 (11.9) | 70.6 (7.7) | |
|
|
|
| |||
| RR Sys (mmHg) | RR Dias (mmHg) | RR Sys (mmHg) | RR Dias (mmHg) | ||
|
| Low Reflow | 119.7 (10.9) | 71.9 (6.8) | 118.8 (13.1) | 70.3 (7.5) |
| High Reflow | 114.2 (11.5) | 70.0 (6.2) | 112.0 (13.3) | 70.4 (7.0) | |
|
| Low Reflow | 116.7 (9.3) | 70.3 (7.8) | 113.6 (11.3) | 70.3 (7.7) |
| High Reflow | 112.7 (11.5) | 71.0 (8.4) | 113.3 (9.9) | 73.0 (8.9) | |
Figure 5Red blood cell deformability during the (r)IPC intervention and performance test. Red blood cell deformability, represented as the SS1/2:EImax ratio, during (A) high reflow (HR) rIPC (left panel) and low reflow (LR) rIPC (right panel) interventions, and during (B) HR IPC (left panel) and LR IPC (right panel) interventions, respectively. Data are shown as mean (SD); * p < 0.05.