Impact of Resting Differences in Muscle Sympathetic Nerve Activity on Hemodynamic and Neural Responses to Exercise
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Resting muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) displays high inter‐individual variability, yet the neural characteristics of those with high vs. low MSNA and resultant cardiovascular consequences are largely unclear. The purpose of this study was to examine blood pressure (BP) variability at rest and during exercise in individuals with high vs. low resting MSNA, and to characterize differences in resting sympathetic and cardiac baroreflex sensitivity (cBRS), in order to understand the accompanying neural characteristics and cardiovascular consequences of different levels of vasoconstrictor outflow. We retrospectively analyzed MSNA (microneurography) and continuous BP (Finometer) obtained at rest and during 2 minutes of static handgrip exercise at 30% maximal voluntary contraction from 60 young healthy men (n=30) and women (n=30). Within each sex, data was split into tertiles based on resting MSNA burst frequency and a comparative analysis was performed on the highest vs. lowest MSNA groups. BP variability was calculated as the beat‐to‐beat standard deviation. Spontaneous sympathetic baroreflex sensitivity (sBRS) was calculated using a weighted linear regression between diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and MSNA burst incidence. Threshold values (T 50 ) were obtained by calculating the resting DBP associated with 50% of the MSNA bursts. cBRS was determined using the sequence technique. As expected, resting MSNA burst frequency was different between high and low groups (30±4 vs. 14±6 bursts/min [mean±SD], p<0.01), however, baseline anthropometrics, BP, heart rate, and cBRS sensitivity were not different (all, p>0.05). Resting DBP variability was lower in the high group (4±1 vs. 5±2 mmHg, p=0.05). sBRS was higher in the high group (−5.4±1.9 vs. −4.6±1.6 bursts/100 heartbeats/mmHg, p<0.01), and was correlated with resting MSNA (r=−0.46, p<0.01). T 50 did not differ between the groups (60 vs. 55 mmHg, p>0.05), however, the prevailing mean DBP was above the T 50 DBP to a lower extent in the high group (mean DBP – T 50 DBP: 10±3 vs. 18±7 mmHg, p<0.01), and this value was negatively correlated with resting MSNA burst incidence (r=−0.76, p<0.01). During static handgrip exercise, BP and heart rate increased similarly in both groups (all, p>0.05), yet the increase in MSNA burst frequency was smaller in the high group (Δ 4±7 vs 10±6 bursts/min, p<0.01); similar results were obtained using MSNA burst incidence and total MSNA (both p<0.01). The change in burst frequency was unrelated to resting sBRS (r=0.23, p>0.05). Systolic BP variability was lower in the high group during exercise (7±3 vs 10±5 mmHg, p<0.05), but DBP variability was not different. In conclusion, differences in resting MSNA are unrelated to resting and exercising BP, but are likely associated with inter‐individual differences in the degree of BP variability and arterial baroreflex‐mediated suppression of MSNA. Further, baseline MSNA was found to influence the magnitude of the change during static handgrip exercise, though the hemodynamic consequences of these differences, and mechanisms responsible warrant further research. Support or Funding Information Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery Grant; Canada Foundation for Innovation This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».