No abstract

BackgroundCardiac remodeling is a specific response to exercise training and time exposure. We hypothesized that athletes engaging for long periods in high-intensity strength training show heart and/or vascular damage.ObjectiveTo compare cardiac characteristics (structure and function) and vascular function (flow-mediated dilation [FMD] and peripheral vascular resistance [PVR]) in powerlifters and long-distance runners.MethodsWe evaluated 40 high-performance athletes (powerlifters [PG], n = 16; runners [RG], n = 24) and assessed heart structure and function (echocardiography), systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP), FMD, PVR, maximum force (squat, bench press, and deadlift), and maximal oxygen uptake (spirometry). A Student’s t Test for independent samples and Pearson’s linear correlation were used (p < 0.05).ResultsPG showed higher SBP/DBP (p < 0.001); greater interventricular septum thickness (p < 0.001), posterior wall thickness (p < 0.001) and LV mass (p < 0.001). After adjusting LV mass by body surface area (BSA), no difference was observed. As for diastolic function, LV diastolic volume, wave E, wave e’, and E/e’ ratio were similar for both groups. However, LA volume (p = 0.016) and BSA-adjusted LA volume were lower in PG (p < 0.001). Systolic function (end-systolic volume and ejection fraction), and FMD were similar in both groups. However, higher PVR in PG was observed (p = 0.014). We found a correlation between the main cardiovascular changes and total weight lifted in PG.ConclusionsCardiovascular adaptations are dependent on training modality and the borderline structural cardiac changes are not accompanied by impaired function in powerlifters. However, a mild increase in blood pressure seems to be related to PVR rather than endothelial function.

BackgroundHypertension is an important risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes. Primary health care (PHC) physicians should be prepared to act appropriately in the prevention of cardiovascular risk factors. However, the rates of patients with control of blood pressure (BP) remain low. The impact of the reclassification of high BP by 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) can lead to different medical decisions in PHC.ObjectiveTo evaluate the agreement between the BP measured by a conventional method by PHC physicians and by 24-hour ABPM, considering different BP normal thresholds for the 24-hour ABPM according to the V Brazilian ABPM Guidelines and the European Society of Hypertension Guidelines.MethodsA cross-sectional study including 569 hypertensive patients. The BP was initially measured by the PHC physicians and, later, by 24-hour ABPM. The BP measurements were obtained independently between the two methods. The therapeutic targets for the conventional BP followed the guidelines by the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8), the V ABPM Brazilian Guidelines, and the 2013 European Hypertension Guidelines.ResultsThere was an accuracy of 54.8% (95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.51 - 0.58%) for the BP measured with the conventional method when compared with the 24-hour ABPM, with a sensitivity of 85% (95%CI 80.8 - 88.6%), specificity of 31.9% (95%CI 28.7 - 34.7%), and kappa value of 0.155, when considering the European Hypertension Guidelines. When using more stringent thresholds to characterize the BP as "normal" by ABPM, the accuracy was 45% (95%CI 0.41 - 0.47%) for conventional measurement when compared with 24-hour ABPM, with a sensitivity of 86.7% (95%CI 0.81 - 0.91%), specificity of 29% (95%CI 0.26 - 0.30%), and kappa value of 0.103.ConclusionThe BP measurements obtained by PHC physicians showed low accuracy when compared with those obtained by 24-hour ABPM, regardless of the threshold set by the different guidelines.

No abstract

No abstract