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。