Acute Effects of Submaximal Aerobic Exercise on Aortic Wall Stress Measured by Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients with Thoracic Aortic Disease
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Current guidelines recommend that clinically stable patients with thoracic aortic disease (AD, including aneurysm or dissection) with well-controlled blood pressure (BP) perform regular ‘mild-to-moderate’ intensity aerobic exercise. However, these guidelines are not based on physiological evidence, and may be restrictive to some fitter patients. Importantly, no studyhas measured thoracic aortic wall stress (AWS; a measure of stress on the aorta and an independent predictor of dissection and/or rupture) during exercise in individuals with or without AD. Purpose: We sought to measure thoracic AWS, using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), during submaximal aerobic exercise in participants with AD compared to age-matched (i.e., older) and younger healthy controls (OC and YC, respectively). We hypothesized that resting AWS will be higher in AD versus OC and YC but that the response to exercise will not be different between groups, and at moderate exercise will be below the maximal tensile strength reported for human thoracic aorta aneurysm (1200 kPa). Methods: Seven participants with stable AD (2 females, 69±11yrs, 3 with unrepaired ascending aortic aneurysm) were compared to 9 OC (4 females, 66±6yrs) and 7 YC (4 females, 29±6yrs) without AD. Participants underwent comprehensive evaluation of cardiac and aortic structure and function at rest and during light and moderate intensity stepping exercise (Ergospect Cardio Step) using MRI. Cardiac output (Qc) and aortic dimensions were measured at rest and during exercise using ungated free breathing cardiac MRI. Aortic wall thickness was measured at rest using black-blood fat-suppressed cardiac-gated fast spin echo MRI. Circumferential ascending and descending thoracic AWS was calculated in accordance with LaPlace law, as the product of systolic blood pressure and aortic diameter divided by wall thickness. Given that Qc directly influences AWS, we also related the change in AWS to the change in Qc during exercise. Baseline characteristics and AWS/Qc slopes were compared using one-way ANOVA, and a two-way mixed effects ANOVA evaluated the exercise response within and between groups. Results: Ascending AWS was not different between groups at rest (p=0.13), increased with exercise (p<0.01), and the response to exercise did not differ between groups (interaction, p=0.27). Descending AWS was lower in YC at rest (p=0.03), which persisted during all exercise stages (effect of group, p<0.01). The rise in descending AWS was up 3-fold larger in AD (YC: +21±15 kPa; OC: +46±18 kPa; AD: +62±30 kPa) resulting in a significant interaction (p<0.01). Importantly, all AWS values during exercise were below the aneurysmal rupture threshold. For example, at moderate intensity exercise, ascending AWS was 184±42kPa, 235±36kPa, and 216±68kPa in the YC, OC, and AD, respectively, and the highest value reported in any individual was 312kPa. Lastly, patients with AD had higher AWS/Qc slopes in both the ascending (YC: 6±5kPa/L/min; OC, 9±4 kPa/L/min; AD: 18±7kPa/L/min; p=0.01) and descending thoracic aorta (YC: 4±2kPa/L/min; OC: 10±6kPa/L/min; AD: 18±11kPa/L/min; p<0.01). Conclusion: In clinically stable, normotensive patients with thoracic AD, ascending and descending AWS remains well below the aneurysm rupture threshold during moderate-intensity aerobic exercise. Compared to YC, the AWS response to exercise is higher in OC, and even more so in patients with thoracic AD, which is further demonstrated when indexed to Qc. These preliminary findings highlight the potential of AWS as a novel quantitativemetric for safely prescribing individualized exercisetraining programs for these patients. Dr. Margaret "Marmie" Perkins Hess Heart Research Pilot Grant (Cardiovascular Research Institute, UofA). PDF in Health Innovation & Enhancement (Alberta Innovates). This abstract was presented at the American Physiology Summit 2025 and is only available in HTML format. There is no downloadable file or PDF version. The Physiology editorial board was not involved in the peer review process.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 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) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».