Effects of Aerobic Exercise Training and Irbesartan on Blood Pressure and Heart Rate Variability in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The present pilot study was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy of an aerobic exercise training (AET) program alone or combined with an antihypertensive agent (irbesartan) to reduce blood pressure (BP) and enhance heart rate variability (HRV) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. METHODS: Twenty-one patients were randomly assigned to a double-blind treatment with exercise and placebo (n=11) or exercise and irbesartan (n=10). Subjects underwent 24 h BP monitoring and 24 h electrocardiographic recording before and after the 12-week AET. HRV was investigated using three indexes from the power spectral analysis and three indexes calculated from the time domain. The AET program consisted of exercising on a calibrated ergocycle for 30 min three times per week. Five patients in the placebo group were excluded during follow-up because they were not compliant. RESULTS: There was no change in 24 h systolic and diastolic BP before (130+/-14 mmHg and 70+/-3 mmHg, respectively) and after (128+/-8 mmHg and 70+/-8 mmHg, respectively) exercise training in the placebo group, whereas in the irbesartan group systolic and diastolic BP decreased from 135+/-9 mmHg and 76+/-9 mmHg to 126+/-12 mmHg and 72+/-8 mmHg, respectively (P<0.02). There were no changes in HRV parameters in either group. CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that a 12-week AET program is not associated with a significant reduction in BP or enhancement in HRV, whereas an AET program combined with irbesartan is associated with a reduction in 24 h BP.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".