Paul Norman Bennett1, Steve Fraser2, Robert Barnard3, Terry Haines4, Cherene Ockerby5, Maryann Street6, Wei Chun Wang7, Robin Daly2. 1. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia Centre for Nursing Research, Western Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 2. School of Exercise & Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC, Australia. 3. South Australia Department of Health, Centre for Physical Activity in Ageing-Central Adelaide Local Health Network, Adelaide, SA, Australia. 4. Physiotherapy Department, School of Primary Health Care, Monash University and Monash Health, Monash, VIC, Australia. 5. Centre for Nursing Research, Deakin University & Monash Health Partnership, Monash, VIC, Australia. 6. Nursing and Midwifery Research Centre, Deakin University-Eastern Health, Box Hill, VIC, Australia. 7. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Intradialytic exercise programmes are important because of the deterioration in physical function that occurs in people receiving haemodialysis. Unfortunately, exercise programmes are rarely sustained in haemodialysis clinics. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of a sustainable resistance exercise programme on the physical function of people receiving haemodialysis. METHODS: A total of 171 participants from 15 community satellite haemodialysis clinics performedprogressive resistance training using resistance elastic bands in a seated position during the first hour of haemodialysis treatment. We used a stepped-wedge design of three groups, each containing five randomly allocated cluster units allocated to an intervention of 12, 24 or 36 weeks. The primary outcome measure was objective physical function measured by the 30-s sit-to-stand (STS) test, the 8-foot timed up and go (TUG) test and the four-square step test. Secondary outcome measures included quality of life, involvement in community activity, blood pressure and self-reported falls. RESULTS:Exercise training led to significant improvements in physical function as measured by STS and TUG. There was a significant average downward change (β = -1.59, P < 0.01) before the intervention and a significant upward change after the intervention (β = 0.38, P < 0.01) for the 30-s STS with a similar pattern noted for the TUG. CONCLUSION:Intradialytic resistance training can improve the physical function of people receiving dialysis.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Intradialytic exercise programmes are important because of the deterioration in physical function that occurs in people receiving haemodialysis. Unfortunately, exercise programmes are rarely sustained in haemodialysis clinics. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of a sustainable resistance exercise programme on the physical function of people receiving haemodialysis. METHODS: A total of 171 participants from 15 community satellite haemodialysis clinics performed progressive resistance training using resistance elastic bands in a seated position during the first hour of haemodialysis treatment. We used a stepped-wedge design of three groups, each containing five randomly allocated cluster units allocated to an intervention of 12, 24 or 36 weeks. The primary outcome measure was objective physical function measured by the 30-s sit-to-stand (STS) test, the 8-foot timed up and go (TUG) test and the four-square step test. Secondary outcome measures included quality of life, involvement in community activity, blood pressure and self-reported falls. RESULTS: Exercise training led to significant improvements in physical function as measured by STS and TUG. There was a significant average downward change (β = -1.59, P < 0.01) before the intervention and a significant upward change after the intervention (β = 0.38, P < 0.01) for the 30-s STS with a similar pattern noted for the TUG. CONCLUSION: Intradialytic resistance training can improve the physical function of people receiving dialysis.
Authors: Amelie Bernier-Jean; Nadim A Beruni; Nicola P Bondonno; Gabrielle Williams; Armando Teixeira-Pinto; Jonathan C Craig; Germaine Wong Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-01-12
Authors: Kate Lyden; Robert Boucher; Guo Wei; Na Zhou; Jesse Christensen; Glenn M Chertow; Tom Greene; Srinivasan Beddhu Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2021-04-22 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Mara A McAdams-DeMarco; Jonathan Konel; Fatima Warsame; Hao Ying; Marlís González Fernández; Michelle C Carlson; Derek M Fine; Lawrence J Appel; Dorry L Segev Journal: Kidney Int Rep Date: 2017-08-19
Authors: Paul N Bennett; Wael F Hussein; Kimberly Matthews; Mike West; Erick Smith; Marc Reiterman; Grace Alagadan; Bryan Shragge; Jignesh Patel; Brigitte M Schiller Journal: Kidney Med Date: 2020-03-17
Authors: Ahmed A Al-Jaishi; Kelly Carroll; Cory E Goldstein; Stephanie N Dixon; Amit X Garg; Stuart G Nicholls; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Charles Weijer; Jamie Brehaut; Lehana Thabane; P J Devereaux; Monica Taljaard Journal: Trials Date: 2020-08-28 Impact factor: 2.279