Cargando…

Isometric handgrip exercise impacts only on very short-term blood pressure variability, but not on short-term blood pressure variability in hypertensive individuals: A randomized controlled trial

Background: The effect of a single isometric handgrip exercise (IHG) on blood pressure (BP) variability (BPV) has not been addressed. This randomized controlled trial evaluated the effect of IHG vs. sham on BPV and BP. Methods: Hypertensive patients using up to two BP-lowering medications were rando...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bertoletti, Otávio A., Ferrari, Rodrigo, Ferlin, Elton L., Barcellos, Ozi M., Fuchs, Sandra C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9513464/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36176768
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2022.962125
Descripción
Sumario:Background: The effect of a single isometric handgrip exercise (IHG) on blood pressure (BP) variability (BPV) has not been addressed. This randomized controlled trial evaluated the effect of IHG vs. sham on BPV and BP. Methods: Hypertensive patients using up to two BP-lowering medications were randomly assigned to IHG (4 × 2 min; 30% of maximal voluntary contraction, MVC, with 1 min rest between sets, unilateral) or sham (protocol; 0.3% of MVC). Systolic and diastolic BP were assessed beat-to-beat in the laboratory before, during, and post-intervention and also using 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). BPV was expressed as average real variability (ARV) and standard deviation (SD). Results: Laboratory BPV, ARV and SD variability, had marked increase during the intervention, but not in the sham group, decreasing in the post-intervention recovery period. The overall change in ARV from pre- to 15 min post-intervention were 0.27 ± 0.07 (IHG) vs. 0.05 ± 0.15 (sham group), with a statistically significant p-value for interaction. Similarly, mean systolic BP increased during the intervention (IHG 165.4 ± 4.5 vs. sham 152.4 ± 3.5 mmHg; p = 0.02) as did diastolic BP (104.0 ± 2.5 vs. 90.5 ± 1.7 mmHg, respectively; p < 0.001) and decreased afterward. However, neither the short-term BPV nor BP assessed by ABPM reached statistically significant differences between groups. Conclusion: A single session of IHG reduces very short-term variability but does not affect short-term variability. IHG promotes PEH in the laboratory, but does not sustain 24-h systolic and diastolic PEH beyond the recovery period.