Cardiovascular and Applied Physiology Laboratory, Department of Health, Nutrition, & Food Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, United States.
Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2023 Dec 1;325(6):R797-R808. doi: 10.1152/ajpregu.00148.2023. Epub 2023 Oct 23.
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, means ± SD]. We compared variables between nasal- and oral-only breathing (random order, five min each) using paired, two-tailed tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank paired tests with significance set to < 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, = 0.006, Cohen's = 0.70) and diastolic BP [nasal: 68(8) vs. oral: 72(5) mmHg, < 0.001, Rank-biserial correlation = 0.89] but not systolic BP (nasal: 116 ± 11 vs. oral: 117 ± 9 mmHg, = 0.48, Cohen's = 0.16) or heart rate (HR; nasal: 74 ± 10 vs. oral: 75 ± 8 beats·min, = 0.90, Cohen's = 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%, = 0.04, Cohen's = 0.50) and a lower low frequency-to-HF ratio at rest (nasal: 0.9 ± 0.8 vs. oral: 1.2 ± 0.9, = 0.04, Cohen's = 0.49). These data suggest that nasal compared with oral breathing acutely ) lowers mean and diastolic BP, ) does not affect systolic BP or heart rate, and ) increases parasympathetic contributions to HRV. 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 ) lowers mean and diastolic blood pressure (BP), ) does not affect systolic BP or heart rate (HR), and ) increases parasympathetic contributions to heart rate variability (HRV). These data suggest that acute nasal breathing improves several prognostic cardiovascular variables.
人们越来越关注呼吸节奏、模式和训练（例如，设备引导或抵抗呼吸）如何影响心血管健康。目前尚不清楚呼吸途径（鼻呼吸与口呼吸）是否会影响预后心血管变量。由于鼻呼吸可以改善其他生理变量（例如，气道扩张），我们假设与口呼吸相比，鼻呼吸会急性降低血压（BP）并改善心率变异性（HRV）指标。我们在这项研究中测试了 20 名成年人[13 名女性/7 名男性；年龄：18（1）岁，中位数（IQR）；体重指数：23±2kg·m，均值±SD]。我们使用配对双侧 t 检验或 Wilcoxon 符号秩配对检验比较鼻呼吸和口呼吸之间的变量（随机顺序，每次 5 分钟），显著性设置为 < 0.05。我们报告舒张压的中位数（四分位距）和所有其他变量的均值±SD。我们发现，与口呼吸相比，鼻呼吸与平均血压（鼻呼吸：84±7mmHg 与口呼吸：86±5mmHg， = 0.006，Cohen's = 0.70）和舒张压[鼻呼吸：68（8）mmHg 与口呼吸：72（5）mmHg， < 0.001，秩相关系数=0.89]显著降低，但收缩压（鼻呼吸：116±11mmHg 与口呼吸：117±9mmHg， = 0.48，Cohen's = 0.16）或心率（HR；鼻呼吸：74±10 次·分钟与口呼吸：75±8 次·分钟， = 0.90，Cohen's = 0.03）无显著差异。我们还发现，与口呼吸相比，鼻呼吸与 HRV 中的高频（HF）贡献增加有关（鼻呼吸：59±19%与口呼吸：52±21%， = 0.04，Cohen's = 0.50），并且在休息时低频与高频的比值降低（鼻呼吸：0.9±0.8 与口呼吸：1.2±0.9， = 0.04，Cohen's = 0.49）。这些数据表明，与口呼吸相比，鼻呼吸急性地）降低平均血压和舒张压，）不影响收缩压或心率，并且）增加 HRV 的副交感神经贡献。人们越来越关注呼吸节奏、模式和训练（例如，设备引导或抵抗呼吸）如何影响预后心血管变量。然而，呼吸途径对预后心血管变量的潜在影响尚不清楚。这些数据表明，与口呼吸相比，鼻呼吸）降低平均和舒张压（BP），）不影响收缩压或心率（HR），并且）增加心率变异性（HRV）的副交感神经贡献。这些数据表明，急性鼻呼吸可改善多种预后心血管变量。
