BACKGROUND: Low physical activity has been identified as a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Medical societies therefore recommend increased physical activity be part of any antihypertensive therapy. OBJECTIVE: Focusing on patient-relevant outcomes such as mortality and cardiovascular events, this review was conducted to assess the long-term effects of interventions aiming at increasing physical activity in comparison with no such interventions on adult patients with essential hypertension. DATA SOURCES: We searched for high-quality systematic reviews in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Cochrane Reviews), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (Other Reviews) and Health Technology Assessment Database (Technology Assessments) published between 1997 and February 2009 and for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Clinical Trials) published before September 2012. Additional studies were identified by hand searching reference lists of reviews. STUDY SELECTION: RCTs with at least 24 weeks' follow-up that evaluated the effect of increased physical activity on the blood pressure of adults with essential hypertension were included in our review. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, end-stage renal disease, quality of life and adverse events. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: When appropriate, we used random effects meta-analyses to determine mean difference with 95 % confidence intervals for each endpoint. All data were analysed using the Review Manager software version 5.0.24 from the Cochrane Collaboration. RESULTS: None of the included nine trials, covering 891 patients with hypertension, provided sufficient data on patient-relevant outcomes such as mortality, cardiovascular events or injuries related to physical activity. Information on changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure was provided for all included trials. The majority of the included RCTs reported that increased physical activity led to a decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure of 5-10 and 1-6 mmHg, respectively, but due to marked heterogeneity in the meta-analyses both for systolic and diastolic blood pressure (I² = 70.0 and 73.0 %), no effect estimates were provided. LIMITATIONS: About 50 % of the included trials were small, evaluating at most 20 participants per study group, and more than twothirds were deemed to have a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Although a decrease in blood pressure is shown to be a consequence of increased physical activity, RCTs of appropriate study size and quality that examine potential patient-relevant benefits or harms still need to be conducted to evaluate whether physical activity really improves the health of patients with essential hypertension.
BACKGROUND: Low physical activity has been identified as a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Medical societies therefore recommend increased physical activity be part of any antihypertensive therapy. OBJECTIVE: Focusing on patient-relevant outcomes such as mortality and cardiovascular events, this review was conducted to assess the long-term effects of interventions aiming at increasing physical activity in comparison with no such interventions on adult patients with essential hypertension. DATA SOURCES: We searched for high-quality systematic reviews in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Cochrane Reviews), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (Other Reviews) and Health Technology Assessment Database (Technology Assessments) published between 1997 and February 2009 and for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Clinical Trials) published before September 2012. Additional studies were identified by hand searching reference lists of reviews. STUDY SELECTION: RCTs with at least 24 weeks' follow-up that evaluated the effect of increased physical activity on the blood pressure of adults with essential hypertension were included in our review. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, end-stage renal disease, quality of life and adverse events. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: When appropriate, we used random effects meta-analyses to determine mean difference with 95 % confidence intervals for each endpoint. All data were analysed using the Review Manager software version 5.0.24 from the Cochrane Collaboration. RESULTS: None of the included nine trials, covering 891 patients with hypertension, provided sufficient data on patient-relevant outcomes such as mortality, cardiovascular events or injuries related to physical activity. Information on changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure was provided for all included trials. The majority of the included RCTs reported that increased physical activity led to a decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure of 5-10 and 1-6 mmHg, respectively, but due to marked heterogeneity in the meta-analyses both for systolic and diastolic blood pressure (I² = 70.0 and 73.0 %), no effect estimates were provided. LIMITATIONS: About 50 % of the included trials were small, evaluating at most 20 participants per study group, and more than twothirds were deemed to have a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Although a decrease in blood pressure is shown to be a consequence of increased physical activity, RCTs of appropriate study size and quality that examine potential patient-relevant benefits or harms still need to be conducted to evaluate whether physical activity really improves the health of patients with essential hypertension.
Authors: M Pahor; B M Psaty; M H Alderman; W B Applegate; J D Williamson; C Cavazzini; C D Furberg Journal: Lancet Date: 2000-12-09 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Aram V Chobanian; George L Bakris; Henry R Black; William C Cushman; Lee A Green; Joseph L Izzo; Daniel W Jones; Barry J Materson; Suzanne Oparil; Jackson T Wright; Edward J Roccella Journal: Hypertension Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Bruce M Psaty; Thomas Lumley; Curt D Furberg; Gina Schellenbaum; Marco Pahor; Michael H Alderman; Noel S Weiss Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-05-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Salim Yusuf; Steven Hawken; Stephanie Ounpuu; Tony Dans; Alvaro Avezum; Fernando Lanas; Matthew McQueen; Andrzej Budaj; Prem Pais; John Varigos; Liu Lisheng Journal: Lancet Date: 2004 Sep 11-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Rodney P Joseph; Barbara E Ainsworth; Sonia Vega-López; Marc A Adams; Kevin Hollingshead; Steven P Hooker; Michael Todd; Glenn A Gaesser; Colleen Keller Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-12-18 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: A E Schutte; S Botha; C M T Fourie; L F Gafane-Matemane; R Kruger; L Lammertyn; L Malan; C M C Mels; R Schutte; W Smith; J M van Rooyen; L J Ware; H W Huisman Journal: J Hum Hypertens Date: 2017-03-23 Impact factor: 3.012
Authors: Yanping Li; Dong D Wang; Sylvia H Ley; Annie Green Howard; Yuna He; Yuan Lu; Goodarz Danaei; Frank B Hu Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-08-23 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Dori E Rosenberg; Mikael Anne Greenwood-Hickman; Jing Zhou; Andrea J Cook; Kayne D Mettert; Julie Cooper; David Arterburn; Beverly B Green; Callie Walsh-Bailey; Jacqueline Kerr; Neville Owen; David Dunstan; Jennifer B McClure Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-10-16 Impact factor: 2.226