BACKGROUND: To explore the efficacy of cycle training in the treatment of intermittent claudication, the present study compared performance and physiologic effects of cycle training with more conventional treadmill walking training in a group of patients with claudication. METHOD: Forty-two individuals with peripheral arterial disease and intermittent claudication (24 men, 18 women) were stratified by gender and the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes mellitus and then randomized to a treadmill (n = 13), cycle (n = 15), or control group (n = 14). Treadmill and cycle groups trained three times a week for 6 weeks, whereas the control group did not train during this period. Maximal and pain-free exercise times were measured on graded treadmill and cycle tests before and after training. RESULTS:Treadmill training significantly improved maximal and pain-free treadmill walking times but did not improve cycle performance. Cycle training significantly improved maximal cycle time but did not improve treadmill performance. However, there was evidence of a stronger cross-transfer effect between the training modes for patients who reported a common limiting symptom during cycling and walking at baseline. There was also considerable variation in the training response to cycling, and a subgroup of responsive patients in the cycle group improved their walking performance by more than the average response observed in the treadmill group. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that cycle exercise is not effective in improving walking performance in all claudication patients but might be an effective alternative to walking in those who exhibit similar limiting symptoms during both types of exercise.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: To explore the efficacy of cycle training in the treatment of intermittent claudication, the present study compared performance and physiologic effects of cycle training with more conventional treadmill walking training in a group of patients with claudication. METHOD: Forty-two individuals with peripheral arterial disease and intermittent claudication (24 men, 18 women) were stratified by gender and the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes mellitus and then randomized to a treadmill (n = 13), cycle (n = 15), or control group (n = 14). Treadmill and cycle groups trained three times a week for 6 weeks, whereas the control group did not train during this period. Maximal and pain-free exercise times were measured on graded treadmill and cycle tests before and after training. RESULTS: Treadmill training significantly improved maximal and pain-free treadmill walking times but did not improve cycle performance. Cycle training significantly improved maximal cycle time but did not improve treadmill performance. However, there was evidence of a stronger cross-transfer effect between the training modes for patients who reported a common limiting symptom during cycling and walking at baseline. There was also considerable variation in the training response to cycling, and a subgroup of responsive patients in the cycle group improved their walking performance by more than the average response observed in the treadmill group. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that cycle exercise is not effective in improving walking performance in all claudicationpatients but might be an effective alternative to walking in those who exhibit similar limiting symptoms during both types of exercise.