4.5 Article

Upper- versus lower-limb aerobic exercise training on health-related quality of life in patients with symptomatic peripheral arterial disease

期刊

JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY
卷 53, 期 5, 页码 1265-1273

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2010.10.125

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: This randomized controlled trial investigated the effects of upper- and lower-limb aerobic exercise training on disease-specific functional status and generic health-related quality of life (QOL) in patients with intermittent claudication. Methods: The study recruited 104 patients (mean age, 68 years; range, 50-85) from the Sheffield Vascular Institute. Patients were randomly allocated to groups that received upper-limb (ULG) or lower-limb (LLG) aerobic exercise training, or to a nonexercisc control group. Exercise was performed mice weekly for 24 weeks at equivalent limb-specific relative exercise intensities. Main outcome measures were scores on the Walking Impairment Questionnaire (WIQ) for disease-specific functional status, the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form version 2 (SF-36v2), and European Quality of Life Visual Analog Scale (EQ-VAS) for health-related QOL. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, and at 6, 24, 48, and 72 weeks. Results: After 6 weeks, improvements in the perceived severity of claudication (P = .023) and stair climbing ability (P = .011) vs controls were observed in the ULG, and an improvement in the general health domain of the SF-36v2 vs controls was observed in the LLG (P = .010). After 24 weeks, all four WIQ domains were improved in the ULG vs controls (P <= .05), and three of the four WIQ domains were improved in the LLG (P < .05). After 24 to 72 weeks of follow-up, more consistent changes in generic health-related QOL domains were apparent in the ULG. Conclusions:These findings support the use of alternative, relatively pain-free forms of exercise in the clinical management of patients with intermittent claudication. (J Vasc Surg 2011;53:1265-73.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据