4.2 Article

Eccentric versus conventional cycle training to improve muscle strength in advanced COPD: A randomized clinical trial

Journal

RESPIRATORY PHYSIOLOGY & NEUROBIOLOGY
Volume 276, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.resp.2020.103414

Keywords

COPD; Eccentric exercise; Pulmonary rehabilitation; Exercise training; Muscle strength

Funding

  1. Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre
  2. Foundation of the Montreal Chest Institute
  3. Edith Strauss Rehabilitation Research
  4. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Systematic Biology Training
  5. Chercheurs-Boursiers Junior 1
  6. Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Sante
  7. William Dawson Research Scholars Award

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To compare eccentric (ECC) and conventional concentric (CON) cycle training on quadriceps muscle strength in advanced COPD. Secondary objective was to assess functional capacity. Methods: A parallel-group, assessor-blind, randomized trial was conducted. Severe COPD patients were randomized to either an ECC (n = 13) or CON (n = 11) cycling program for 30-min, 3 times/week for 10 weeks. ECC group trained at similar to 4-fold higher power than the CON group at similar relative heart rate intensity. Results: Isometric and isokinetic quadriceps peak torque improved after ECC but not CON; between group difference was significant for isometric peak muscle force (p < 0.05). Peak cycling power and endurance time increased in both groups (p < 0.05). Dyspnea at peak cycling power improved only after ECC training (p < 0.05). Sensory intensity ratings of dyspnea and leg fatigue were significantly lower (p< 0.05) during ECC compared with CON at equivalent relative heart rate intensities. Conclusions: ECC could be an effective alternative and/or adjunct modality to pulmonary rehabilitation in severely ventilatory limited COPD patients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available