4.6 Article

Physical activity and energy expenditure in haemodialysis patients: an international survey

Journal

NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 27, Issue 6, Pages 2430-2434

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfr692

Keywords

energy expenditure; haemodialysis; nutrition; physical activity

Funding

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo [07/05184-1]
  2. Baxter France

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. The assessment of physical activity and energy expenditure is relevant to the care of maintenance haemodialysis (MHD) patients. In the current study, we aimed to evaluate measurements of physical activity and energy expenditure in MHD patients from different centres and countries and explored the predictors of physical activity in these patients. Methods. In this cross-sectional multicentre study, 134 MHD patients from four countries (France, Switzerland, Sweden and Brazil) were included. The physical activity was evaluated for 5.0 +/- 1.4 days (mean +/- SD) by a multisensory device (SenseWear Armband) and comprised the assessment of number of steps per day, activity-related energy expenditure (activity-related EE) and physical activity level (PAL). Results. The number of steps per day, activity-related EE and PAL from the MHD patients were compatible with a sedentary lifestyle. In addition, all parameters were significantly lower in dialysis days when compared to non-dialysis days (P < 0.001). The multivariate regression analysis revealed that diabetes and higher body mass index (BMI) predicted a lower PAL and older age and diabetes predicted a reduced number of steps. Conclusions. The physical activity parameters of MHD patients were compatible with a sedentary lifestyle. This inactivity was worsened by aging, diabetes and higher BMI. Our results indicate that MHD patients should be encouraged by the health care team to increase their physical activity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available