4.4 Article

The training-induced changes on automatism, conduction and myocardial refractoriness are not mediated by parasympathetic postganglionic neurons activity

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 112, 期 6, 页码 2185-2193

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-011-2189-4

关键词

Physical training; Parasympathetic postganglionic neurons; Heart electrophysiology

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Education and Science [DEP2007-73234-C03-01]
  2. Generalitat Valenciana [PROMETEO 2010/093, BFPI/2008/003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study is to test the role that parasympathetic postganglionic neurons could play on the adaptive electrophysiological changes produced by physical training on intrinsic myocardial automatism, conduction and refractoriness. Trained rabbits were submitted to a physical training protocol on treadmill during 6 weeks. The electrophysiological study was performed in an isolated heart preparation. The investigated myocardial properties were: (a) sinus automatism, (b) atrioventricular and ventriculoatrial conduction, (c) atrial, conduction system and ventricular refractoriness. The parameters to study the refractoriness were obtained by means of extrastimulus test at four different pacing cycle lengths (10% shorter than spontaneous sinus cycle length, 250, 200 and 150 ms) and (d) mean dominant frequency (DF) of the induced ventricular fibrillation (VF), using a spectral method. The electrophysiological protocol was performed before and during continuous atropine administration (1 mu M), in order to block cholinergic receptors. Cholinergic receptor blockade did not modify either the increase in sinus cycle length, atrioventricular conduction and refractoriness (left ventricular and atrioventricular conduction system functional refractory periods) or the decrease of DF of VF. These findings reveal that the myocardial electrophysiological modifications produced by physical training are not mediated by intrinsic cardiac parasympathetic activity.

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

4.4
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