BACKGROUND:Intradialytic exercise has been described to improve blood pressure stability and dialysis efficacy. However, comorbid conditions in the dialysis population often preclude the widespread use of active intradialytic exercise. Therefore, we investigated the effect of intradialytic transcutaneous muscle stimulation (TEMS) and passive cycling movements (PCMs) on blood pressure and dialysis efficacy in patients. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, controlled, randomized, crossover investigation. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Ten patients were randomly allocated to TEMS, PCMs, or no intervention (NI) for 9 consecutive dialysis sessions. INTERVENTION: Participants were studied with NI, PCMs using a motor-driven ergometer, and bilateral TEMS of the leg musculature. Individual dialysis prescriptions were unchanged during the investigation. OUTCOMES & MEASUREMENTS: The effect of TEMS and PCMs on blood pressure and dialysis efficacy in patients was assessed. RESULTS:Mean blood pressure increased from 121/64 +/- 21/15 mm Hg with NI to 132/69 +/- 21/15 mm Hg (P < 0.001) during sessions with PCMs and 125/66 +/- 22/16 mm Hg (P < 0.05) during sessions with TEMS. Urea and phosphate removal during dialysis were significantly (P < 0.001) greater with TEMS (19.4 +/- 3.7 g/dialysis and 1,197 +/- 265 mg/dialysis) or PCMs (20.1 +/- 3.4 g/dialysis and 1,172 +/- 315 mg/dialysis) than with NI (15.1 +/- 3.9 g/dialysis and 895 +/- 202 mg/dialysis). Body weight, ultrafiltration, Kt/V, and increases in hemoglobin and albumin levels during dialysis did not differ among the NI, PCMs, and TEMS groups. LIMITATIONS: The study design does not allow extension of the findings to prolonged treatment. CONCLUSION: Future studies during longer observation periods will have to prove the persistence of these acute findings. Both TEMS and PCMs deserve future investigations in dialysis patients because they increase intradialytic blood pressure and facilitate urea and phosphate removal when applied short term.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Intradialytic exercise has been described to improve blood pressure stability and dialysis efficacy. However, comorbid conditions in the dialysis population often preclude the widespread use of active intradialytic exercise. Therefore, we investigated the effect of intradialytic transcutaneous muscle stimulation (TEMS) and passive cycling movements (PCMs) on blood pressure and dialysis efficacy in patients. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, controlled, randomized, crossover investigation. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Ten patients were randomly allocated to TEMS, PCMs, or no intervention (NI) for 9 consecutive dialysis sessions. INTERVENTION: Participants were studied with NI, PCMs using a motor-driven ergometer, and bilateral TEMS of the leg musculature. Individual dialysis prescriptions were unchanged during the investigation. OUTCOMES & MEASUREMENTS: The effect of TEMS and PCMs on blood pressure and dialysis efficacy in patients was assessed. RESULTS: Mean blood pressure increased from 121/64 +/- 21/15 mm Hg with NI to 132/69 +/- 21/15 mm Hg (P < 0.001) during sessions with PCMs and 125/66 +/- 22/16 mm Hg (P < 0.05) during sessions with TEMS. Urea and phosphate removal during dialysis were significantly (P < 0.001) greater with TEMS (19.4 +/- 3.7 g/dialysis and 1,197 +/- 265 mg/dialysis) or PCMs (20.1 +/- 3.4 g/dialysis and 1,172 +/- 315 mg/dialysis) than with NI (15.1 +/- 3.9 g/dialysis and 895 +/- 202 mg/dialysis). Body weight, ultrafiltration, Kt/V, and increases in hemoglobin and albumin levels during dialysis did not differ among the NI, PCMs, and TEMS groups. LIMITATIONS: The study design does not allow extension of the findings to prolonged treatment. CONCLUSION: Future studies during longer observation periods will have to prove the persistence of these acute findings. Both TEMS and PCMs deserve future investigations in dialysis patients because they increase intradialytic blood pressure and facilitate urea and phosphate removal when applied short term.
Authors: Beata Hornik; Jan Duława; Czesław Marcisz; Wojciech Korchut; Jacek Durmała Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-02-18 Impact factor: 3.390