Post-Exercise Hypotension Induced by a Short Isometric Exercise Session Versus Combined Exercise in Hypertensive Patients with Ischemic Heart Disease: A Pilot Study

TL;DR

This study compared the effects of short isometric and combined exercise on blood pressure in patients with heart disease and high blood pressure.

Contribution

The study is novel in comparing post-exercise hypotension from isometric versus combined exercise in hypertensive patients with ischemic heart disease.

Findings

Combined exercise reduced systolic blood pressure more than isometric exercise.

Isometric exercise was as effective as combined exercise in reducing diastolic blood pressure.

Neither exercise type significantly changed diastolic blood pressure compared to control.

Abstract

Background: Short sessions of isometric exercise have been shown to reduce blood pressure (BP) in normotensive and hypertensive subjects. However, there are few data in hypertensive patients with underlying ischemic heart disease (IHD). In the present study, we compared post-exercise hypotension (PEH) induced by isometric versus combined, aerobic plus dynamic resistance exercise in IHD patients. Methods: Twenty-five stable patients with established IHD and with treated hypertension were enrolled. The study had a cross-over design. All patients performed in a random order and on different days: (1) isometric exercise session (IES) consisting of bilateral knee extension, performed at 20% of maximal voluntary contraction and lasting 20 min; (2) combined exercise session (CES) including moderate-intensity continuous exercise at and dynamic resistance exercise performed at 60% of one repetition maximum, and lasting 60 min and (3) control session (no exercise). BP was measured at rest, immediately after the training and then every 15 min up to 90 min. Results: The repeated measures ANOVA analysis showed that systolic BP significantly decreased after the CES session compared to the control (F = 6.2; p 0.001) and IES (F = 4.4; p 0.004). Systolic BP significantly decreased after IES compared to the control (F = 3.6; p 0.036). Diastolic BP did not show significant changes after CES and IES compared to the control (CES vs. control: F = 2.2; p 0.142; IES vs. control (F = 2.5; p 0.062). There were no significant differences in diastolic BP changes between CES and IES (CES vs. IES: F = 1.8; p 0.156). Conclusions: We observed that CES was more effective than IES in reducing systolic BP; IES was as effective as CES in inducing diastolic PEH in hypertensive patients with underlying IHD.

Figures