4.6 Article

Effects of chronic exercise on myocardial refractoriness:: a study on isolated rabbit heart

期刊

ACTA PHYSIOLOGICA
卷 193, 期 4, 页码 331-339

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-1716.2008.01851.x

关键词

heart electrophysiology; physical training

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: To determine whether chronic physical training increases atrial and ventricular refractoriness in isolated rabbit heart. Methods: Trained rabbits were submitted to a protocol of treadmill running. The electrophysiological parameters of refractoriness investigated in an isolated heart preparation were: (1) atrial effective refractory period (AERP) and atrial functional refractory period and ventricular effective and functional refractory periods (VERP and VFRP) using the extrastimulus technique at four different pacing cycle lengths; (2) the dominant frequency (DF) of ventricular fibrillation (VF). A multi-electrode plaque containing 256 electrodes and a spectral method were used to obtain the mean, maximum and minimum DF of VF. Sinus cycle length of the isolated hearts was determined as an electrophysiological parameter of training. In vivo heart rate, myocardial heat shock proteins (HSP60) and inducible nitric oxide synthase were also determined in some animals as electrophysiological and biochemical markers of training respectively. Results: VERP and VFRP were longer in the trained group than in the control group. The mean DF of VF was lower in the trained group than in the control group. Despite the fact that training did not significantly modify the AERP, it tended to be longer in the trained group (P = 0.09). Conclusions: Training seems to increase the electrical stability of ventricular myocardium. As the electrophysiological modifications were exhibited in hearts not submitted to extrinsic nervous system or humoral influences, they are, at least in part, intrinsic modifications. These electrophysiological data also suggest that training could protect against reentrant ventricular arrhythmias.

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