Exercise blood pressure and cardiovascular disease risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies

Acute nasal breathing lowers diastolic blood pressure and increases parasympathetic contributions to heart rate variability in young adults

There is growing interest in how breathing pace, pattern, and training (e.g., device-guided or -resisted breathing) affect cardiovascular health. It is unknown whether the route of breathing (nasal vs. oral) affects prognostic cardiovascular variables. Because nasal breathing can improve other physiological variables (e.g., airway dilation), we hypothesized that nasal compared with oral breathing would acutely lower blood pressure (BP) and improve heart rate variability (HRV) metrics. We tested 20 adults in this study [13 females/7 males; age: 18(1) years, median (IQR); body mass index: 23 ± 2 kg·m-2, means ± SD]. We compared variables between nasal- and oral-only breathing (random order, five min each) using paired, two-tailed t tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank paired tests with significance set to P < 0.05. We report the median (interquartile range) for diastolic BP and means ± SD for all other variables. We found that nasal breathing was associated with a lower mean BP (nasal: 84 ± 7 vs. oral: 86 ± 5 mmHg, P = 0.006, Cohen's d = 0.70) and diastolic BP [nasal: 68(8) vs. oral: 72(5) mmHg, P < 0.001, Rank-biserial correlation = 0.89] but not systolic BP (nasal: 116 ± 11 vs. oral: 117 ± 9 mmHg, P = 0.48, Cohen's d = 0.16) or heart rate (HR; nasal: 74 ± 10 vs. oral: 75 ± 8 beats·min-1, P = 0.90, Cohen's d = 0.03). We also found that nasal breathing was associated with a higher high-frequency (HF) contribution to HRV (nasal: 59 ± 19 vs. oral: 52 ± 21%, P = 0.04, Cohen's d = 0.50) and a lower low frequency-to-HF ratio at rest (nasal: 0.9 ± 0.8 vs. oral: 1.2 ± 0.9, P = 0.04, Cohen's d = 0.49). These data suggest that nasal compared with oral breathing acutely 1) lowers mean and diastolic BP, 2) does not affect systolic BP or heart rate, and 3) increases parasympathetic contributions to HRV.NEW & NOTEWORTHY There is growing interest in how breathing pace, pattern, and training (e.g., device-guided or -resisted breathing) affect prognostic cardiovascular variables. However, the potential effects of the breathing route on prognostic cardiovascular variables are unclear. These data suggest that nasal compared with oral breathing 1) lowers mean and diastolic blood pressure (BP), 2) does not affect systolic BP or heart rate (HR), and 3) increases parasympathetic contributions to heart rate variability (HRV). These data suggest that acute nasal breathing improves several prognostic cardiovascular variables.

Exploring the direct and indirect effects of cardiovascular disease risk factors on exercise blood pressure

OBJECTIVE

Exaggerated exercise blood pressure (BP) is independently associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes. However, it is unknown how individual CVD risk factors may interact with one another to influence exercise BP. The aim of this study was to quantify direct and indirect associations between CVD risk factors and exercise BP, to determine what CVD risk factor/s most-strongly relate to exercise BP.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional design, 660 participants (44 ± 2.6 years, 54% male) from the population-based Childhood Determinants of Adult Health Study had BP measured during low-intensity fixed-workload cycling. CVD risk factors were measured, including body composition, clinic (rest) BP, blood biomarkers, and cardiorespiratory fitness. Associations between CVD risk factors and exercise BP were assessed using linear regression, with direct and indirect pathways of association assessed via structural equation model.

RESULTS

Sex, waist-to-hip ratio, fitness, and clinic BP were independently associated with exercise systolic BP (SBP), and along with age, had direct associations with exercise SBP (p < 0.05 all). Most CVD risk factors were indirectly associated with exercise SBP via a relation with clinic BP (p < 0.05 all). Clinic BP, waist-to-hip ratio, and fitness were most-strongly associated (direct and indirect association) with exercise SBP (β[95% CI]: 9.35 [8.04, 10.67], 4.91 [2.56, 7.26], and -2.88 [-4.25, -1.51] mm Hg/SD, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Many CVD risk factors are associated with exercise BP, mostly with indirect effects via clinic BP. Clinic BP, body composition, and fitness were most-strongly associated with exercise BP. These results may elucidate how lifestyle modification could be a primary strategy to decrease exaggerated exercise BP-related CVD risk.

Type-2 Diabetes and the Clinical Importance of Exaggerated Exercise Blood Pressure

BACKGROUND

Exaggerated exercise blood pressure (EEBP) during clinical exercise testing is associated with poor blood pressure (BP) control and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Type-2 diabetes (T2DM) is thought to be associated with increased prevalence of EEBP, but this has never been definitively determined and was the aim of this study.

METHODS

Clinical exercise test records were analyzed from 13 268 people (aged 53±13 years, 59% male) who completed the Bruce treadmill protocol (stages 1-4, and peak) at 4 Australian public hospitals. Records (including BP) were linked to administrative health datasets (hospital and emergency admissions) to define clinical characteristics and classify T2DM (n=1199) versus no T2DM (n=12 069). EEBP was defined as systolic BP ≥90th percentile at each test stage. Exercise BP was regressed on T2DM history and adjusted for CVD and risk factors.

RESULTS

Prevalence of EEBP (age, sex, preexercise BP, hypertension history, CVD history and aerobic capacity adjusted) was 12% to 51% greater in T2DM versus no T2DM (prevalence ratio [95% CI], stage 1, 1.12 [1.02-1.24]; stage 2, 1.51 [1.41-1.61]; stage 3, 1.25 [1.10-1.42]; peak, 1.18 [1.09-1.29]). At stages 1 to 3, 8.6% to 15.8% (4.8%-9.7% T2DM versus 3.5% to 6.1% no-T2DM) of people with 'normal' preexercise BP (<140/90 mm Hg) were identified with EEBP. Exercise systolic BP relative to aerobic capacity (stages 1-4 and peak) was higher in T2DM with adjustment for all CVD risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

People with T2DM have higher prevalence of EEBP and exercise systolic BP independent of CVD and many of its known risk factors. Clinicians supervising exercise testing should be alerted to increased likelihood of EEBP and thus poor BP control warranting follow-up care in people with T2DM.

Six months of unsupervised exercise training lowers blood pressure during moderate, but not vigorous, aerobic exercise in adults with well-healed burn injuries

Exercise training reduces cardiovascular disease risk, partly due to arterial blood pressure (BP) lowering at rest and during fixed-load exercise. However, it is unclear whether exercise training can reduce BP at rest and during exercise in adults with well-healed burn injuries. Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was to test the hypothesis that 6 mo of unsupervised exercise training reduces BP at rest and during lower-body cycle ergometry in adults with well-healed burn injuries. Thirty-nine adults (28 with well-healed burn injuries and 11 controls) completed 6 mo of unsupervised, progressive exercise training including endurance, resistance, and high-intensity interval components. Before and after exercise training, we measured BP at rest, during fixed-load submaximal exercise (50 and 75 W), during fixed-intensity submaximal exercise (40% and 70% of V̇o2peak), and during maximal exercise on a lower-body cycle ergometer. We compared cardiovascular variables using two-way ANOVA (group × pre/postexercise training [repeated factor]). Adults with well-healed burn injuries had higher diastolic BP at rest (P = 0.04), which was unchanged by exercise training (P = 0.26). Exercise training reduced systolic, mean, and diastolic BP during fixed-load cycling exercise at 75 W in adults with well-healed burn injuries (P ≤ 0.03 for all), but not controls (P ≥ 0.67 for all). Exercise training also reduced mean and diastolic BP during exercise at 40% (P ≤ 0.02 for both), but not at 70% (P ≥ 0.18 for both), of V̇o2peak. These data suggest that a 6-mo unsupervised exercise training program lowers BP during moderate, but not vigorous, aerobic exercise in adults with well-healed burn injuries.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Adults with well-healed burn injuries have greater cardiovascular disease morbidity and all-cause mortality compared with nonburn-injured adults. We found that exercise training reduced blood pressure (BP) during fixed-load cycling at 75 W and during moderate, but not vigorous, intensity cycling exercise in adults with well-healed burn injuries. These data suggest that 6 mo of unsupervised exercise training provides some degree of cardioprotection by reducing BP responses during submaximal exercise in well-healed burn-injured adults.