4.0 Article

Physical exercise improves arterial stiffness after spinal cord injury

Journal

JOURNAL OF SPINAL CORD MEDICINE
Volume 37, Issue 6, Pages 782-785

Publisher

MANEY PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1179/2045772314Y.0000000232

Keywords

Cardiovascular diseases; Exercise; Pulse wave analysis; Spinal cord injuries; Vascular stiffness

Funding

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation
  2. Heart and Stroke Foundation
  3. Craig H. Neilsen and Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective/background: Aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV), the gold-standard assessment of central arterial stiffness, has prognostic value for cardiovascular disease risk in able-bodied individuals. The aim of this study was to compare aortic PWV in athletes and non-athletes with spinal cord injury (SCI). Design: Cross-sectional comparison. Methods: Aortic PWV was assessed in 20 individuals with motor-complete, chronic SCI (C2-T5; 18 +/- 8 years post-injury) using applanation tonometry at the carotid and femoral arterial sites. Ten elite hand-cyclists were matched for sex to 10 non-athletes; age and time since injury were comparable between the groups. Heart rate and discrete brachial blood pressure measurements were collected throughout testing. Outcome measures: Aortic PWV, blood pressure, heart rate. Results: Aortic PWV was significantly lower in athletes vs. non-athletes (6.9 +/- 1.0 vs. 8.7 +/- 2.5 m/second, P = 0.044). There were no significant between-group differences in resting supine mean arterial blood pressure (91 +/- 19 vs. 81 +/- 10 mmHg) and heart rate (60 +/- 10 vs. 58 +/- 6 b.p.m.). Conclusion: Athletes with SCI exhibited improved central arterial stiffness compared to non-athletes, which is in agreement with the previous able-bodied literature. This finding implies that chronic exercise training may improve arterial health and potentially lower cardiovascular disease risk in the SCI population.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available