4.4 Article

Benefits of High-Intensity Exercise Training to Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Controlled Study

期刊

RESPIRATION
卷 93, 期 5, 页码 301-310

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000464139

关键词

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; Strength exercise; Training; High intensity; Quality of life; Six-minute walk test

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Various exercise training programs are used for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) of different severity. Objectives: To investigate the impact of individualized high-intensity training on exercise capacity with COPD. Methods: A total of 49 patients agreed to participate. Of these, 31 were assigned to the training group and 18 served as controls. The training group exercised twice a week for 90 min with consecutively increasing loads. At the time of enrollment (T-0), as well as after 3 (T-1) and 6 (T-2) months, a 6-min walk test (6-MWT) was performed and data on health-related quality of life, femoral muscle thickness, and various serum markers were obtained. Results: The training group improved in their 6-MWT results (T-0 = 407 +/- 152 m vs. T-1 = 459 +/- 127 m, p = 0.002, vs. T-2 = 483.2 +/- 130.1 m, p = 0.004), in their cross-sectional area of the musculus rectus femoris (T-0 = 6.2 +/- 1.2 cm(2) vs. T-1 = 6.9 +/- 1.2 cm(2), p = 0.003, vs. 7.5 +/- 1.6 cm(2), p = 0.002), and in their St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score (T-0 = 43.3 +/- 18.0 vs. T-1 = 36.0 +/- 18.4, p = 0.001, vs. T-2 = 34.7 +/- 18. 0, p = 0.004). Serum levels of myostatin, irisin, resistin, and a-Klotho did not change significantly within the training period. Of note, the exercise group showed an inverse relationship between serum levels of resistin and those of a-Klotho after 6 months (r = -0.608, p = 0.021). Conclusions: COPD patients undergoing an individualized, structured, high-intensity training program improved their exercise capacity, gained muscle mass, and improved their quality of life. (C) 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel

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

4.4
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