Finnish Sauna Bathing and Vascular Function in Adults with Coronary Artery Disease: Preliminary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Regular Finnish sauna use is associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular mortality. However, mechanisms underlying this relationship remain unknown. Other forms of heat therapy have been shown to improve markers of vascular function in healthy young adults as well as in middle‐aged adults with cardiovascular risk factors and older adults with chronic heart failure. Nevertheless, no experimental study has addressed the effects of regular Finnish sauna use on vascular function. This study tested the hypothesis that an 8‐week Finnish sauna intervention improves vascular function in adults with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) Methods Fourteen middle‐aged to older adults (61 ± 7 years, 12 men/2 women) with stable CAD and naïve to heat therapy were randomized to 8 weeks of Finnish sauna (4 sessions/week, 20‐30 min/session) (SAUNA, n=7) or maintenance of habitual lifestyle (CTRL, n=7). Before and after the intervention, resting blood pressure, brachial artery flow‐mediated dilation (FMD) and cutaneous vasodilation during local heating at 39°C were measured. Brachial artery FMD was used as an index of conduit artery endothelial function, peak and area under the curve (AUC) of forearm vascular conductance (FVC) during reactive hyperemia were used as indices of peripheral microvascular reactivity and the plateau of cutaneous vascular conductance, expressed as percentage of maximal (%CVC) during local heating, was used as an index of skin microvascular reactivity. Results Resting systolic ( P for interaction = 0.55) and diastolic blood pressure ( P for interaction = 0.56) were not different between interventions. Contrary to our hypothesis, no effect of the sauna intervention was observed on FMD (SAUNA pre to post: 4.2 ± 2.4 to 4.5 ± 2.1%, CTRL pre to post: 5.0 ± 1.8 to 4.3 ± 2.1%, P for interaction = 0.37). Peripheral microvascular reactivity decreased following the SAUNA intervention and increased following CTRL, according to peak FVC (SAUNA pre to post: 2.7 ± 1.2 to 2.3. ± 1.2 ml/min/mmHg, CTRL pre to post: 3.2 ± 0.6 to 3.9 ± 0.7 ml/min/mmHg, P for interaction = 0.03) and FVC‐AUC (SAUNA pre to post: 1.4 ± 0.6 to 1.1 ± 0.6 ml/mmHg, CTRL pre to post: 1.7 ± 0.5 to 2.1 ± 0.5 ml/mmHg, P for interaction = 0.03). However, within group changes in both peak FVC and FVC‐AUC were not significant (all P > 0.06). No effect of either intervention was observed on %CVC ( P for interaction = 0.33). Conclusion These results suggest that 4 sessions of Finnish sauna bathing per week for 8 weeks does not improve markers of macro‐ or microvascular function in middle‐aged to older adults with stable CAD.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".