4.1 Article

Does blood flow restriction training increase the diameter of forearm vessels in chronic kidney disease patients? A randomized clinical trial

期刊

JOURNAL OF VASCULAR ACCESS
卷 19, 期 6, 页码 626-633

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1129729818768179

关键词

Arteriovenous fistula; chronic renal insufficiency; isometric exercise; vascular endothelium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Blood flow restriction training can be used as an alternative to conventional exercise in chronic kidney disease patients with indication of arteriovenous fistula. Objective: Evaluating the efficacy of blood flow restriction training in the diameter and distensibility change of the cephalic vein and the diameter and flow of the radial artery, muscle strength and forearm circumference in chronic kidney disease patients with arteriovenous fistula pre-creation. Methods: A blind randomized clinical trial consisting of 26 chronic kidney disease patients allocated into a blood flow restriction training group (blood flow restriction; n = 12) and a group without blood flow restriction training (control group; n = 14). Blood flow restriction was performed at 50% of systolic blood pressure and using 40% of handgrip strength as load for the isometric exercises in both groups. Results: An increase in the diameter of the cephalic vein in the 2 cm (p = 0.008) and 10 cm segments (p = 0.001) was observed in the control group. The diameter of the radial artery increased in all segments in the blood flow restriction group (2, 10 and 20 cm; p = 0.005, p = 0.021 and p = 0.018, respectively) and in the 10 and 20 cm segments (p = 0.017 and p = 0.026) in the control group. Handgrip strength only increased in the control group (p = 0.003). Conclusion: Physical training associated with blood flow restriction increased cephalic vein diameters in both groups and was effective in increasing the diameter of the radial artery; however, it did not demonstrate superiority over the exercise group protocol without blood flow restriction.

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

4.1
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