4.6 Article

Effect of shift work on endothelial function in young cardiology trainees

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE CARDIOLOGY
卷 19, 期 5, 页码 908-913

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1741826711422765

关键词

Endothelial function; shift work; cardiovascular risk

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Long-term shift work (SW) is associated with an increase in cardiovascular disease (CVD). Previous studies have shown that prolonged SW is associated with endothelial dysfunction, suggesting that this abnormality may contribute to the SW-related increase in cardiovascular risk. The immediate effect of SW on endothelial function in healthy subjects, however, is unknown. Design: We studied endothelial function and endothelium-independent function in 20 healthy specialty trainees in cardiology at our Institute, without any cardiovascular risk factor (27.3+/-1.9 years, nine males), at two different times: (1) after a working night (WN), and (2) after a restful night (RN). The two test sessions were performed in a random sequence. Methods: Endothelial function was assessed by measuring brachial artery dilation during post-ischaemic forearm hyperaemia (flow-mediated dilation, FMD). Endothelium-independent function in response to 25 mu g of sublingual glyceryl trinitrate (nitrate-mediated dilation, NMD) was also assessed. Results: FMD was 8.02 +/- 1.4% and 8.56 +/- 1.7% after WN and RN, respectively (p = 0.025), whereas NMD was 10.5 +/- 2.1% and 10.4 +/- 2.0% after WN and RN, respectively (p = 0.48). The difference in FMD between WN and RN was not influenced by the numbers of hours slept during WN (<= 4 vs >4 hours) and by the duration of involvement of specialty trainees in nocturnal work (<= 12 vs >12 months). Conclusions: Our study shows that in healthy medical residents, without any cardiovascular risk factor, FMD is slightly impaired after WN compared to RN. Disruption of physiological circadian neuro-humoral rhythm is likely to be responsible for this adverse vascular effect.

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

4.6
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