4.5 Article

Training rather than walking - The test in-train out program for home-based rehabilitation in peripheral arteriopathy

期刊

CIRCULATION JOURNAL
卷 72, 期 6, 页码 946-952

出版社

JAPANESE CIRCULATION SOC
DOI: 10.1253/circj.72.946

关键词

exercise; exercise therapy; intermittent claudication; peripheral vascular disease; rehabilitation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Exercise training reduces walking disability in peripheral arterial disease (PAD). This non-randomized study evaluates the effects on walking ability and hemodynamic parameters of a novel approach to home-based rehabilitation, the test in-train out program (Ti-To), compared with the traditional home-based free walking exercise (Tr-E). Methods and Results A total of 143 patients with claudication (117 men, average age 68 +/- 10 years), were included in a Ti-To (n=83) or Tr-E program (n=60). Evaluations, which were carried out upon entry and at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 months, included: self-reported claudication, walking ability (ie, absolute claudication distance, pain threshold speed), resting/exercise heart rates (HR), systolic/diastolic brachial pressure (SBP/DBP), ankle pressure (AP), ankle-brachial index (ABI). Ti-To involved 2 daily 10-min home walking sessions at maximal asymptomatic speed and the patient attending monthly check-ups at hospital. Tr-E involved 20-30 min of daily walking at self-selected speeds up to pain tolerance. A total of 126 patients (Ti-To, n=74; Tr-E, n=52) completed the program. Ti-To induced better relief from claudication (p=0.001). Functional parameters improved significantly for both groups (p<0.0001) with significant intergroup difference for Ti-To (p<0.0001). SBP and exercise HR decreased significantly in both groups, with Ti-To improving resting HR (p=0.0002), DBP (p=0.003), lowest AP worse limb (p=0.004) and ABI worse limb (p=0.0002). Conclusions In patients with PAD, a Ti-To program had more positive effects on perceived claudication, and functional and hemodynamic parameters than did a Tr-E program.

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