Cardiac parasympathetic reactivation following exercise : implications for training prescription

The objective of exercise training is to initiate desirable physiological adaptations that ultimately enhance physical work capacity. Optimal training prescription requires an individualized approach, with an appropriate balance of training stimulus and recovery and optimal periodization. Recovery from exercise involves integrated physiological responses. The cardiovascular system plays a fundamental role in facilitating many of these responses, including thermoregulation and delivery/removal of nutrients and waste products. As a marker of cardiovascular recovery, cardiac parasympathetic reactivation following a training session is highly individualized. It appears to parallel the acute/intermediate recovery of the thermoregulatory and vascular systems, as described by the supercompensation theory. The physiological mechanisms underlying cardiac parasympathetic reactivation are not completely understood. However, changes in cardiac autonomic activity may provide a proxy measure of the changes in autonomic input into organs and (by default) the blood flow requirements to restore homeostasis. Metaboreflex stimulation (e.g. muscle and blood acidosis) is likely a key determinant of parasympathetic reactivation in the short term (0–90 min post-exercise), whereas baroreflex stimulation (e.g. exercise-induced changes in plasma volume) probably mediates parasympathetic reactivation in the intermediate term (1–48 h post-exercise). Cardiac parasympathetic reactivation does not appear to coincide with the recovery of all physiological systems (e.g. energy stores or the neuromuscular system). However, this may reflect the limited data currently available on parasympathetic reactivation following strength/resistance-based exercise of variable intensity. In this review, we quantitatively analyse post-exercise cardiac parasympathetic reactivation in athletes and healthy individuals following aerobic exercise, with respect to exercise intensity and duration, and fitness/training status. Our results demonstrate that the time required for complete cardiac autonomic recovery after a single aerobic-based training session is up to 24 h following low-intensity exercise, 24–48 h following threshold-intensity exercise and at least 48 h following high-intensity exercise. Based on limited data, exercise duration is unlikely to be the greatest determinant of cardiac parasympathetic reactivation. Cardiac autonomic recovery occurs more rapidly in individuals with greater aerobic fitness. Our data lend support to the concept that in conjunction with daily training logs, data on cardiac parasympathetic activity are useful for individualizing training programmes. In the final sections of this review, we provide recommendations for structuring training microcycles with reference to cardiac parasympathetic recovery kinetics. Ultimately, coaches should structure training programmes tailored to the unique recovery kinetics of each individual.

Can nurses do more for patients to reduce vascular access and cardiac complications following PCI?

Percutaneous coronary interventions have increased 50% in Australia, yet vascular and cardiac complications remain ongoing outcome issues for patients. Managing complications is confounded by reduced length of patient stay, yet is an integral component of a cardiac nurses’ scope of practice. The aim of this study was to highlight in and out of hospital vascular and cardiac complications, for twelve months post patient discharge after PCI. Prospective data was collected from the hospital angioplasty database from 1089 consecutive patients who had PCI procedures from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2006. In hospital vascular complications were reported by 391 (35%) of the 1089 patients, following PCI. Of these, 22.4% had haemorrhage only, 7.1% haematoma only. Cardiac complications in hospital were, one death (0.09%) following PCI, three deaths (0.27%) during the same admission and no incidence of myocardial infarction or bypass surgery. Patients who had PCI in 2005 (525) were telephone followed up after discharge at one and twelve months. Surprisingly, ongoing vascular outcomes were noted, with a 2.5% incidence at one month and 4% at 12 months. Cardiac complications were also identified, 51 (9.7%) patients requiring readmission for repeat angiogram, 19 (3.6%) a repeat PCI and 7 (1.3%) patients undergoing bypass surgery. This review highlights that vascular and cardiac problems are ongoing issues for PCI patients both in and out of hospital. The results suggest that cardiac nurses focus more on improving the monitoring and discharge care of patients and families for recovery after PCI.

Nurse-determined assessment of cardiac output. Comparing a non-invasive cardiac output device and pulmonary artery catheter: a prospective observational study.

Background The accurate measurement of Cardiac output (CO) is vital in guiding the treatment of critically ill patients. Invasive or minimally invasive measurement of CO is not without inherent risks to the patient. Skilled Intensive Care Unit (ICU) nursing staff are in an ideal position to assess changes in CO following therapeutic measures. The USCOM (Ultrasonic Cardiac Output Monitor) device is a non-invasive CO monitor whose clinical utility and ease of use requires testing. Objectives To compare cardiac output measurement using a non-invasive ultrasonic device (USCOM) operated by a non-echocardiograhically trained ICU Registered Nurse (RN), with the conventional pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) using both thermodilution and Fick methods. Design Prospective observational study. Setting and participants Between April 2006 and March 2007, we evaluated 30 spontaneously breathing patients requiring PAC for assessment of heart failure and/or pulmonary hypertension at a tertiary level cardiothoracic hospital. Methods SCOM CO was compared with thermodilution measurements via PAC and CO estimated using a modified Fick equation. This catheter was inserted by a medical officer, and all USCOM measurements by a senior ICU nurse. Mean values, bias and precision, and mean percentage difference between measures were determined to compare methods. The Intra-Class Correlation statistic was also used to assess agreement. The USCOM time to measure was recorded to assess the learning curve for USCOM use performed by an ICU RN and a line of best fit demonstrated to describe the operator learning curve. Results In 24 of 30 (80%) patients studied, CO measures were obtained. In 6 of 30 (20%) patients, an adequate USCOM signal was not achieved. The mean difference (±standard deviation) between USCOM and PAC, USCOM and Fick, and Fick and PAC CO were small, −0.34 ± 0.52 L/min, −0.33 ± 0.90 L/min and −0.25 ± 0.63 L/min respectively across a range of outputs from 2.6 L/min to 7.2 L/min. The percent limits of agreement (LOA) for all measures were −34.6% to 17.8% for USCOM and PAC, −49.8% to 34.1% for USCOM and Fick and −36.4% to 23.7% for PAC and Fick. Signal acquisition time reduced on average by 0.6 min per measure to less than 10 min at the end of the study. Conclusions In 80% of our cohort, USCOM, PAC and Fick measures of CO all showed clinically acceptable agreement and the learning curve for operation of the non-invasive USCOM device by an ICU RN was found to be satisfactorily short. Further work is required in patients receiving positive pressure ventilation.