↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Impaired myocardial function does not explain reduced left ventricular filling and stroke volume at rest or during exercise at high altitude
Published in
Journal of Applied Physiology, March 2015
DOI 10.1152/japplphysiol.00995.2014
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Impaired myocardial systolic contraction and diastolic relaxation have been suggested as possible mechanisms contributing to the decreased stroke volume (SV) observed at high altitude (HA). To determine whether intrinsic myocardial performance is a limiting factor in the generation of SV at HA, we assessed left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic mechanics and volumes in 10 healthy participants (aged 32 ± 7; mean ± SD) at rest and during exercise at sea level (SL; 344 m) and following 10 days at 5050 m. In contrast to SL, LV end-diastolic volume was ~19% lower at rest (p=0.004) and did not increase during exercise despite a greater untwisting velocity. Furthermore, resting SV was lower at HA (~17%; 60±10 vs. 70±8 ml) despite higher LV twist (43%), apical rotation (115%) and circumferential strain (17%). With exercise at HA, the increase in SV was limited (12 ml vs. 22 ml at SL), and LV apical rotation failed to augment. For the first time, we have demonstrated that EDV does not increase upon exercise at high altitude despite enhanced in vivo diastolic relaxation. The increase in LV mechanics at rest may represent a mechanism by which SV is defended in the presence of a reduced EDV. However, likely due to the higher LV mechanics at rest, no further increase was observed up to 50% peak power. Consequently, whilst hypoxia does not suppress systolic function per se, the capacity to increase SV through greater deformation during submaximal exercise at HA is restricted.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 17%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 16 38%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 6 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 18 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 November 2015.
All research outputs
#19,947,956
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Applied Physiology
#8,033
of 9,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,253
of 273,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Applied Physiology
#65
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,077 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 273,813 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.