4.1 Article

Acute exercise in elite rugby players increases the circulating level of the cardiovascular biomarker GDF-15

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/00365513.2014.905697

关键词

GDF-15; cardiovascular risk; rugby; intense training

资金

  1. Italian Ministero dell' Istruzione, Universita e Ricerca (MIUR) ed il Ministero della Salute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Intense training can lead to a pathophysiological change in serum concentration of a variety of biomarkers. Traditional biomarkers of cardiac injury are very useful in monitoring CVD patients, but in healthy subjects or athletes they cannot be informative enough about the cardiovascular risk, because in these cases their serum levels do not increase over the pathological limit. Therefore novel cardiovascular biomarkers are required in order to allow a better monitoring of sport performance, prediction of overtraining and diagnosis of sport-related cardiac injuries. Growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15) is emerging as a powerful cardiovascular injury risk indicator. In this study we investigate the effect of intense physical training of on the circulating levels of GDF-15 in rugby professional players. Methods. Serum GDF-15, Erythropoietin, IL-6, the cardiovascular parameter ST-2, NT-proBNP and routine hematological parameters were measured in a group of 30 rugby players before and after a session of intense training. Results. While ST-2, IL-6 and hsCRP displayed no significant changes after intense training, NT-proBNP and GDF-15 showed a significant increase, even without reaching the pathological level. Discussion. The measure of GDF-15 in professional rugby players could be a useful tool to monitoring their cardiovascular status during training and competition session in order to prevent the onset of collateral cardiovascular adverse event due to the intense training and, in the case of cardiac injury, it could possibly allow a very early diagnosis at the beginning of the pathogenic process.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据