Schlader Zachary J, Coleman Gregory L, Sackett James R, Sarker Suman, Chapman Christopher L, Hostler David, Johnson Blair D
Center for Research and Education in Special Environments, Department of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Temperature (Austin). 2017 Nov 10;5(1):70-85. doi: 10.1080/23328940.2017.1379585. eCollection 2018.
We tested the hypotheses that older adults with cardiovascular co-morbidities will demonstrate greater changes in body temperature and exaggerated changes in blood pressure before initiating thermal behavior. We studied twelve healthy younger adults (Younger, 25 ± 4 y) and six older adults ('At Risk', 67 ± 4 y) taking prescription medications for at least two of the following conditions: hypertension, type II diabetes, hypercholesterolemia. Subjects underwent a 90-min test in which they voluntarily moved between cool (18.1 ± 1.8°C, RH: 29 ± 5%) and warm (40.2 ± 0.3°C, RH: 20 ± 0%) rooms when they felt 'too cool' (C→W) or 'too warm' (W→C). Mean skin and intestinal temperatures and blood pressure were measured. Data were analyzed as a change from pretest baseline. Changes in mean skin temperature were not different between groups at C→W (Younger: +0.2 ± 0.8°C, 'At Risk': +0.7 ± 1.8°C, P = 0.51) or W→C (Younger: +2.7 ± 0.6°C, 'At Risk': +2.9 ± 1.9°C, P = 0.53). Changes in intestinal temperature were not different at C→W (Younger: 0.0 ± 0.1°C, 'At Risk': +0.1 ± 0.2, P = 0.11), but differed at W→C (-0.1 ± 0.2°C vs. +0.1 ± 0.3°C, P = 0.02). Systolic pressure at C→W increased (Younger: +10 ± 9 mmHg, 'At Risk': +24 ± 17 mmHg) and at W→C decreased (Younger: -4 ± 13 mmHg, 'At Risk': -23 ± 19 mmHg) to a greater extent in 'At Risk' (P ≤ 0.05). Differences were also apparent for diastolic pressure at C→W (Younger: -2 ± 4 mmHg, 'At Risk': +17 ± 23 mmHg, P < 0.01), but not at W→C (Younger Y: +4 ± 13 mmHg, 'At Risk': -1 ± 6 mmHg, P = 0.29). Despite little evidence for differential control of thermal behavior, the initiation of behavior in 'at risk' older adults is preceded by exaggerated blood pressure responses.
患有心血管合并症的老年人在开始体温调节行为之前，体温变化会更大，血压变化会更显著。我们研究了12名健康的年轻人（年轻组，25±4岁）和6名老年人（“风险组”，67±4岁），这些老年人因以下至少两种病症正在服用处方药：高血压、II型糖尿病、高胆固醇血症。受试者接受了一项90分钟的测试，在此期间，当他们感觉“太冷”（C→W）或“太热”（W→C）时，会自愿在凉爽（18.1±1.8°C，相对湿度：29±5%）和温暖（40.2±0.3°C，相对湿度：20±0%）的房间之间移动。测量了平均皮肤温度、肠道温度和血压。数据以测试前基线的变化进行分析。在C→W时，两组之间的平均皮肤温度变化无差异（年轻组：+0.2±0.8°C，“风险组”：+0.7±1.8°C，P = 0.51），在W→C时也无差异（年轻组：+2.7±0.6°C，“风险组”：+2.9±1.9°C，P = 0.53）。在C→W时，肠道温度变化无差异（年轻组：0.0±0.1°C，“风险组”：+0.1±0.2°C，P = 0.11），但在W→C时有差异（-0.1±0.2°C对+0.1±0.3°C，P = 0.02）。在C→W时，“风险组”的收缩压升高幅度更大（年轻组：+10±9 mmHg，“风险组”：+24±17 mmHg），在W→C时下降幅度也更大（年轻组：-4±13 mmHg，“风险组”：-23±19 mmHg）（P≤0.05）。舒张压在C→W时也有明显差异（年轻组：-2±4 mmHg，“风险组”：+17±23 mmHg，P<0.01），但在W→C时无差异（年轻组：+4±13 mmHg，“风险组”：-1±6 mmHg，P = 问题：请你提供这段英文文本的中文翻译。
我们检验了这样的假设：患有心血管合并症的老年人在开始体温调节行为之前，体温变化会更大，血压变化会更显著。我们研究了12名健康的年轻人（年轻组，25±4岁）和6名老年人（“风险组”，67±4岁），这些老年人因以下至少两种病症正在服用处方药：高血压、II型糖尿病、高胆固醇血症。受试者接受了一项90分钟的测试，在此期间，当他们感觉“太冷”（C→W）或“太热”（W→C）时，会自愿在凉爽（18.1±1.8°C，相对湿度：29±5%）和温暖（40.2±0.3°C，相对湿度：20±0%）的房间之间移动。测量了平均皮肤温度、肠道温度和血压。数据以测试前基线的变化进行分析。在C→W时，两组之间的平均皮肤温度变化无差异（年轻组：+0.2±0.8°C，“风险组”：+0.7±1.8°C，P = 0.51），在W→C时也无差异（年轻组：+2.7±0.6°C，“风险组”：+2.9±1.9°C，P = 0.53）。在C→W时，肠道温度变化无差异（年轻组：0.0±0.1°C，“风险组”：+0.1±0.2°C，P = 0.11），但在W→C时有差异（-0.1±0.2°C对+0.1±0.3°C，P = 0.02）。在C→W时，“风险组”的收缩压升高幅度更大（年轻组：+10±9 mmHg，“风险组”：+24±17 mmHg），在W→C时下降幅度也更大（年轻组：-4±13 mmHg，“风险组”：-23±19 mmHg）（P≤0.05）。舒张压在C→W时也有明显差异（年轻组：-2±4 mmHg，“风险组”：+17±23 mmHg，P<0.01），但在W→C时无差异（年轻组：+4±13 mmHg，“风险组”：-1±6 mmHg，P = 0.29）。尽管几乎没有证据表明体温调节行为存在差异控制，但“风险组”老年人在行为开始前血压反应更为显著。
