4.5 Article

Differences in arterial stiffness at rest and after acute exercise between young men and women

Journal

HYPERTENSION RESEARCH
Volume 36, Issue 3, Pages 226-231

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/hr.2012.158

Keywords

augmentation index; exercise testing; pulse wave velocity; sex differences; subendocardial viability ratio

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [102626]
  2. Fonds de la recherche en sante du Queebec
  3. Canadian Institutes of Health Research MD-PhD studentship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There is controversy as to whether there are sex differences in arterial stiffness. Acute physical stress can elicit vascular abnormalities not present at rest. Our objective was to assess sex differences in arterial stiffness at rest and in response to acute physical stress. Healthy young men (n = 67) and women (n = 55) underwent pulse wave analysis and carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity measurements at rest and 2, 5, 10 and 15 min following an exercise test to exhaustion. At rest, aortic systolic, diastolic, pulse and mean pressures were all significantly higher in men as was aortic pulse pressure at 10 and 15 min post exercise and aortic systolic pressure at 15 min. Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity was significantly higher in men (6.0 +/- 0.7ms(-1) vs. 5.6 +/- 0.6ms(-1), P = 0.03) at rest and at all time points post exercise. Heart rate-adjusted augmentation index was significantly lower (-10.7 +/- 10.2% vs. -4.0 +/- 10.9, P < 0.0001) and subendocardial viability ratio was significantly higher (176.2 +/- 43.8% vs. 163.4 +/- 40.9, P = 0.04) in men at rest. To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess sex differences in the arterial stiffness response to acute physical stress in young men and women. Although we were not able to elicit differences in vascular function after adjustment, which were not present at rest, we found that young men and women exhibit differences in arterial stiffness at rest and after acute physical stress. Hypertension Research (2013) 36, 226-231; doi: 10.1038/hr.2012.158; published online 11 October 2012

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available