Effect of Isometric Handgrip Exercise on Diastolic Function in Pediatric Heart Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pediatric heart transplant recipients (HTR) have reduced exercise tolerance and diastolic dysfunction at rest despite normal ejection fraction. In adult HTR the impaired diastolic function is related to peak exercise tolerance, but this relationship is poorly understood in pediatric HTR. To determine the effects of low‐grade exercise stress on diastolic function in pediatric HTR, we tested the hypothesis that diastolic function would be augmented during isometric handgrip exercise. Methods Seven pediatric HTRs were studied (mean±SD age: 10±3 yrs; sex: 3F, 4M; time since transplant: 5.4±2.1 yrs; left ventricular mass: 68±19 g/m 2 ; end‐diastolic volume: 42±6 mL; end‐systolic volume: 12±2 mL; ejection fraction: 71±9 %). Pulsed Doppler was used to quantify early (E) and late (A) diastolic inflow velocities, deceleration time and slope. Tissue Doppler imaging of the lateral mitral annulus was used to assess velocity during early diastole (e′) and late diastole (a′). Left ventricular filling pressure responses were estimated using the early diastolic mitral valve inflow velocity/early diastolic lateral wall tissue velocity ratio (E/e′). Resting diastolic assessment was performed followed by 2 min of isometric handgrip exercise at 30% maximal voluntary contraction with diastolic function re‐assessed during the last 30 s of exercise. Results Heart rate (92±10 to 105±13 bpm; P =0.01) and mean arterial pressure (73±7 to 90±21 mmHg; P =0.035) increased from rest to exercise. There was no significant change in E/A (2.2±0.8 to 2.2±1.1; P =0.831), deceleration time (0.183±0.031 to 0.173±0.035 s; P =0.529), deceleration slope (613±152 to 619±169 cm/s 2 ; P =0.926), e′/a′ (2.8±0.7 to 2.5±1.2 cm/s 2 ; P =0.433), or E/e′ (7.02±1.37 to 7.13±1.71; P =0.709) from rest to exercise. Conclusion Pediatric HTR have diastolic dysfunction at rest that is not augmented during low‐grade handgrip exercise stress. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".