Cargando…

Reliability of forearm oxygen uptake during handgrip exercise: assessment by ultrasonography and venous blood gas

Assessment of forearm oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text] O(2)) during handgrip exercise is a keenly investigated concept for observing small muscle mass metabolism. Although a combination of Doppler ultrasound measurements of brachial artery blood flow ([Formula: see text]) and blood gas drawn from...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nyberg, Stian K., Berg, Ole Kristian, Helgerud, Jan, Wang, Eivind
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5974736/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29845765
http://dx.doi.org/10.14814/phy2.13696
_version_ 1783326876974972928
author Nyberg, Stian K.
Berg, Ole Kristian
Helgerud, Jan
Wang, Eivind
author_facet Nyberg, Stian K.
Berg, Ole Kristian
Helgerud, Jan
Wang, Eivind
author_sort Nyberg, Stian K.
collection PubMed
description Assessment of forearm oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text] O(2)) during handgrip exercise is a keenly investigated concept for observing small muscle mass metabolism. Although a combination of Doppler ultrasound measurements of brachial artery blood flow ([Formula: see text]) and blood gas drawn from a deep forearm vein has been utilized to calculate forearm [Formula: see text] O(2) for more than two decades, the applicability of this experimental design may benefit from a thorough evaluation of its reliability during graded exercise. Therefore, we evaluated the reliability of this technique during incremental handgrip exercise in ten healthy young (24 ± 3(SD) years.) males. [Formula: see text] O(2) and work rate (WR) exhibited a linear relationship (1.0 W: 43.8 ± 10.1 mL·min(−1); 1.5 W: 53.8 ± 14.1 mL·min(−1); 2.0 W: 63.4 ± 16.3 mL·min(−1); 2.5 W: 72.2 ± 17.6 mL·min(−1); 3.0 W: 79.2 ± 18.6 mL·min(−1); r = 0.65, P < 0.01). In turn, [Formula: see text] O(2) was strongly associated with [Formula: see text] (1.0 W: 359 ± 86 mL·min(−1); 1.5 W: 431 ± 112 mL·min(−1); 2.0 W: 490 ± 123 mL·min(−1); 2.5 W: 556 ± 112 mL·min(−1); 3.0 W: 622 ± 131 mL·min(−1); r = 0.96; P < 0.01), whereas arteriovenous oxygen difference (a‐vO(2diff)) remained constant following all WRs (123 ± 11–130 ± 10 mL·L(−1)). Average [Formula: see text] O(2) test–retest difference was −0.4 mL·min(−1) with ±2SD limits of agreement (LOA) of 8.4 and −9.2 mL·min(−1), respectively, whereas coefficients of variation (CVs) ranged from 4–7%. Accordingly, test–retest [Formula: see text] difference was 11.9 mL·min(−1) (LOA: 84.1 mL·min(−1); −60.4 mL·min(−1)) with CVs between 4 and 7%. Test–retest difference for a‐vO (2diff) was −0.28 mL·dL(−1) (LOA: 1.26mL·dL (−1); −1.82 mL·dL(−1)) with 3–5% CVs. In conclusion, our results revealed that forearm [Formula: see text] O(2) determination by Doppler ultrasound and direct venous sampling is linearly related to WR, and a reliable experimental design across a range of exercise intensities.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5974736
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59747362018-06-05 Reliability of forearm oxygen uptake during handgrip exercise: assessment by ultrasonography and venous blood gas Nyberg, Stian K. Berg, Ole Kristian Helgerud, Jan Wang, Eivind Physiol Rep Original Research Assessment of forearm oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text] O(2)) during handgrip exercise is a keenly investigated concept for observing small muscle mass metabolism. Although a combination of Doppler ultrasound measurements of brachial artery blood flow ([Formula: see text]) and blood gas drawn from a deep forearm vein has been utilized to calculate forearm [Formula: see text] O(2) for more than two decades, the applicability of this experimental design may benefit from a thorough evaluation of its reliability during graded exercise. Therefore, we evaluated the reliability of this technique during incremental handgrip exercise in ten healthy young (24 ± 3(SD) years.) males. [Formula: see text] O(2) and work rate (WR) exhibited a linear relationship (1.0 W: 43.8 ± 10.1 mL·min(−1); 1.5 W: 53.8 ± 14.1 mL·min(−1); 2.0 W: 63.4 ± 16.3 mL·min(−1); 2.5 W: 72.2 ± 17.6 mL·min(−1); 3.0 W: 79.2 ± 18.6 mL·min(−1); r = 0.65, P < 0.01). In turn, [Formula: see text] O(2) was strongly associated with [Formula: see text] (1.0 W: 359 ± 86 mL·min(−1); 1.5 W: 431 ± 112 mL·min(−1); 2.0 W: 490 ± 123 mL·min(−1); 2.5 W: 556 ± 112 mL·min(−1); 3.0 W: 622 ± 131 mL·min(−1); r = 0.96; P < 0.01), whereas arteriovenous oxygen difference (a‐vO(2diff)) remained constant following all WRs (123 ± 11–130 ± 10 mL·L(−1)). Average [Formula: see text] O(2) test–retest difference was −0.4 mL·min(−1) with ±2SD limits of agreement (LOA) of 8.4 and −9.2 mL·min(−1), respectively, whereas coefficients of variation (CVs) ranged from 4–7%. Accordingly, test–retest [Formula: see text] difference was 11.9 mL·min(−1) (LOA: 84.1 mL·min(−1); −60.4 mL·min(−1)) with CVs between 4 and 7%. Test–retest difference for a‐vO (2diff) was −0.28 mL·dL(−1) (LOA: 1.26mL·dL (−1); −1.82 mL·dL(−1)) with 3–5% CVs. In conclusion, our results revealed that forearm [Formula: see text] O(2) determination by Doppler ultrasound and direct venous sampling is linearly related to WR, and a reliable experimental design across a range of exercise intensities. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-05-20 /pmc/articles/PMC5974736/ /pubmed/29845765 http://dx.doi.org/10.14814/phy2.13696 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Physiological Reports published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of The Physiological Society and the American Physiological Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Nyberg, Stian K.
Berg, Ole Kristian
Helgerud, Jan
Wang, Eivind
Reliability of forearm oxygen uptake during handgrip exercise: assessment by ultrasonography and venous blood gas
title Reliability of forearm oxygen uptake during handgrip exercise: assessment by ultrasonography and venous blood gas
title_full Reliability of forearm oxygen uptake during handgrip exercise: assessment by ultrasonography and venous blood gas
title_fullStr Reliability of forearm oxygen uptake during handgrip exercise: assessment by ultrasonography and venous blood gas
title_full_unstemmed Reliability of forearm oxygen uptake during handgrip exercise: assessment by ultrasonography and venous blood gas
title_short Reliability of forearm oxygen uptake during handgrip exercise: assessment by ultrasonography and venous blood gas
title_sort reliability of forearm oxygen uptake during handgrip exercise: assessment by ultrasonography and venous blood gas
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5974736/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29845765
http://dx.doi.org/10.14814/phy2.13696
work_keys_str_mv AT nybergstiank reliabilityofforearmoxygenuptakeduringhandgripexerciseassessmentbyultrasonographyandvenousbloodgas
AT bergolekristian reliabilityofforearmoxygenuptakeduringhandgripexerciseassessmentbyultrasonographyandvenousbloodgas
AT helgerudjan reliabilityofforearmoxygenuptakeduringhandgripexerciseassessmentbyultrasonographyandvenousbloodgas
AT wangeivind reliabilityofforearmoxygenuptakeduringhandgripexerciseassessmentbyultrasonographyandvenousbloodgas