PofoliaShared via Pofolia

American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology· 2026Q1

Acute Ventilatory and Hemodynamic Responses to Nasal versus Oral Breathing during Normoxia, Hypoxia, and Hypercapnia

Tom Citherlet, Giorgio Manferdelli, Antoine Raberin, Nicolas Bourdillon et al.

Short summary

Nasal breathing blunts heart rate and oxygen consumption during hypoxia and hypercapnia, respectively, compared to oral or free breathing.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Nasal breathing attenuated the hypoxic rise in heart rate (70±13 vs. 74±13 bpm; P=0.018).
  • Oral breathing increased diastolic blood pressure during hypercapnia compared to free breathing (75±5 vs. 72±5 mmHg; P=0.038).
  • During hypercapnia, V̇O2 was lower during nasal than free breathing (324±69 vs. 360±58 mL/min; P=0.026).
  • Breathing pattern had minimal effects at rest in normoxia, except oral breathing lowered baroreflex sensitivity (BRS) relative to free breathing in one trial (14±6 vs. 19±10 ms/mmHg; P=0.047).

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

Nasal breathing is considered the primary respiratory route, yet its effects on resting cardiorespiratory function under altered inspired gas composition remain unclear. We compared ventilatory and hemodynamic responses during nasal, oral, and free breathing at rest. Twenty-one young adults completed 6-min trials of each breathing pattern during normoxia and normobaric hypoxia (F i O 2 =0.12); a randomized subsample of 11 also completed normoxic hypercapnia (F i CO 2 =0.05). Gas exchange, cardiac hemodynamics (transthoracic bioimpedance) and cardiovagal baroreflex sensitivity (BRS) were measured continuously, and each stressor was compared with its own same-day normoxic baseline. We hypothesized that nasal breathing would blunt these responses. In normoxia, breathing pattern had no consistent effect, although oral breathing lowered BRS relative to free breathing in one of the two normoxic trials (14±6 vs. 19±10 ms/mmHg; P=0.047). In hypoxia, oral breathing elicited a higher respiratory frequency than free breathing (15.7±2.8 vs. 14.9±2.8 breaths/min; P=0.008) and shortened expiratory time (P=0.005), whereas nasal breathing attenuated the hypoxic rise in heart rate (70±13 vs. 74±13 bpm; P=0.018). In hypercapnia, V̇O 2 was lower during nasal than free breathing (324±69 vs. 360±58 mL/min; P=0.026), and oral breathing increased diastolic blood pressure compared to free breathing (75±5 vs. 72±5 mmHg; P=0.038). Breathing route had minimal consequences at rest in normoxia but became physiologically relevant under chemoreflex stress, where nasal breathing lowered oxygen consumption and heart rate whereas oral breathing produced less favourable cardiovascular responses. Maintaining nasal breathing may thus support cardiorespiratory function at altitude and during hypercapnia.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology, 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Endocrine and Autonomic Systems

Endocrine and Autonomic SystemsNeuroscience