| Literature DB >> 30253746 |
Antonia Pahl1, Anja Wehrle2, Sarah Kneis3, Albert Gollhofer4, Hartmut Bertz3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hospitalized cancer patients undergoing intensive or high-dose chemotherapy often experience a considerable decline in functional performance associated with the increased risk of adverse health events. Exercises, particularly resistance-based exercises that may counteract this decline are restricted by therapy-related side effects. Since whole body vibration (WBV) is known to efficiently stimulate the neuromuscular system without significantly raising blood pressure, we hypothesize that especially WBV is particularly feasible even during intensive or high-dose chemotherapy (primary endpoint) and thus induces beneficial functional adaptations.Entities:
Keywords: Activities of daily living; Acute leukemia; Bone marrow neoplasm; Cancer therapy; Exercise therapy; Intervention study; Postural balance
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30253746 PMCID: PMC6156963 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-4813-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Clinical information of completer (n = 11) and all randomized patients (n = 20, completer and drop-outs)
| Completer | All | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| IG | CG | n = 20 | |
| Age [years]a | 47 (19–62) | 56 (32–63) | 55 (47–63) |
| Sex [n] male:female | 5:1 | 3:2 | 14:6 |
| BMI [kg/m2]a | 26 (20–28) | 26 (22–28) | 26 (25–27) |
| Diagnosis [n] | |||
| AML | 1 | 4 | 8 |
| ALL | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| APL | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| NHL | 2 | 0 | 5 |
| HL | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| t-cell lymphoma | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| MW | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| MM | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| PMF | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Remission [n] | |||
| ED | 1 | 3 | 7 |
| SD | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| PD | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| CR | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| PR | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| recurrence | 2 | 0 | 5 |
| N/A | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Time since initial diagnosis [weeks]a | 46 (2–371) | 6 (2–215) | 32 (7–128) |
| Cycles of chemotherapy before admission [n]a | 9 (0–16) | 1 (0–9) | 4 (1–9) |
| Type of chemotherapy during intervention [n] | |||
| High-dose prior to autologous HSCT | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| Induction therapy for AML | 4 | 3 | 8 |
| Intensive chemotherapy for ALL, HL, NHL | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Duration of hospitalization [days]a | 27 (21–56) | 27 (16–69) | 26 (22–34) |
| Karnofsky performance index [%]a | 95 (80–100) | 90 (80–100) | 90 (85–90) |
aMedian (range), BMI body mass index, AML acute myeloid leukemia, ALL acute lymphocytic leukemia, APL acute promyelocytic leukemia, NHL non-Hodgkin lymphoma, HL Hodgkin lymphoma, MW morbus Waldenström, MM multiple myeloma, PMF primary myelofibrosis, ED initial diagnosis, SD stable disease, PD progress disease, CR complete remission, PR partial remission, HSCT hematopoietic cell transplantation
Fig. 1Flow diagram of study recruitment
Comparison of groups’ training compliance and reasons for missed exercise session for all patients participating in the training program (n = 17)
| IG | CG | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance [%]a | 62 (39 77) | 67 (58–100) | 0.315 |
| Completed exercise sessions [n]a | 5 (2–6.5) | 6 (2–8) | 0.417 |
| Reason for missed exercise sessions | |||
| Blood values [n] | 9 | 2 | 0.109 |
| Well-being [n] | 17 | 9 | 0.475 |
| Infection [n] | 1 | 4 | 0.536 |
| Reduced vigilanceb [n] | 13 | 7 | 1.000 |
| Afraid of worsened side effects [n] | 1 | 3 | 0.887 |
| Another appointment [n] | 0 | 1 | 0.669 |
| Separate room for training was not available [n] | 1 | 0 | 0.740 |
aMedian (range), n number of missed exercise sessions; bpatients were unresponsive
Fig. 2Feasibility of WBV - Rate of training compliance and individual training perception. a Distribution of training compliance for IG and CG. Box-and-whisker plots showing the lower quartile (25th percentile), median (50th percentile), upper quartile (75th percentile) and degree of dispersion as 95% confidence interval (95% CI). b Percentage distribution of individual training’s perception after WBV following the question “Did the exercise session do you any good?/Did the workout make you feel good?”. Quite good 63.27%, very good: 29.97%, marginally good 6.66%, not good at all 0%
Changes in vital parameters and weight
|
| T0a median (range) |
| T1a median (range) | median difference (95% CI) |
| ||
| Blood pressure | |||||||
| Systolic (mmHg) | IG | 6 | 128 (110–145) | 6 | 110 (100–123) | −20 (− 43–0) | 0.068 |
| CG | 5 | 120 (115–130) | 5 | 110 (105–125) | − 8 (− 20–5) | 0.141 | |
| P | 0.662 | 0.537 | 0.662 | ||||
| Diastolic (mmHg) | IG | 6 | 80 (70–90) | 6 | 70 (70–80) | −8 (− 15–3) | 0.102 |
| CG | 5 | 80 (60–85) | 5 | 75 (70–90) | 0 (− 5–15) | 0.705 | |
| P | 0.662 | 0.247 | 0.177 | ||||
| Heart rate (bpm) | IG | 6 | 81 (64–97) | 6 | 94 (71–100) | 11 (− 11–22) | 0.345 |
| CG | 5 | 92 (76–100) | 5 | 80 (76–90) | −5 (− 22–13) | 0.225 | |
| P | 0.329 | 0.537 | 0.177 | ||||
| Weight (kg) | IG | 6 | 76 (67–80.3) | 6 | 74.4 (66–83.5) | 0.1 (−2.5–3.2) | 0.917 |
| CG | 5 | 80 (71.8–91) | 5 | 77 (73–80) | −2.2 (− 12–1.2) | 0.144 | |
| P | 0.247 | 0.662 | 0.247 | ||||
|
| Before exercise sessiona median (range) |
| After exercise session median (range) | median difference (95% CI) |
| ||
| Blood pressure | |||||||
| Systolic (mmHg) | IG | 6 | 118 (112–137) | 6 | 118 (113–135) | 0.5 (−4–3) | 0.686 |
| CG | 5 | 114 (112–127) | 5 | 119 (111–136) | 4 (− 1–9) | 0.078 | |
| P | 0.792 | 1.000 | 0.082 | ||||
| Diastolic (mmHg) | IG | 6 | 79 (68–86) | 6 | 78 (73–83) | 0 (− 3–5) | 0.893 |
| CG | 5 | 76 (71–82) | 5 | 77 (71–84) | 1 (0–3) | 0.068 | |
| P | 0.792 | 0.931 | 0.429 | ||||
aMedian (range); bpm beats per minute
Results of functional performance and mobility
|
| T0 median (range) |
| T1 median (range) | median differencea (95% CI) |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Functional performance | |||||||
| Jumping height (cm) | IG | 6 | 24.9 (24.5–45.0) | 6 | 28.0 (26.1–45.2) | 2.3 (0.1–4.4) | 0.028* |
| CG | 5 | 25.6 (20.6–36.5) | 5 | 24.4 (18.3–33.1) | − 3.3 (−13.0–3.6) | 0.345 | |
| P | 0.792 | 0.329 | 0.126 | ||||
| Pmax_CMJ (W/kg) | IG | 6 | 26.3 (23.5–44) | 6 | 25.3 (25–45.3) | − 0.9 (−3.9–1.4) | 0.345 |
| CG | 5 | 28.1 (24.8–28.1) | 5 | 28.6 (20.9–30.8) | − 0.6 (− 14.5–2.7) | 0.500 | |
| P | 0.662 | 0.792 | 1.00 | ||||
| Duration_CRT (sec) | IG | 6 | 1.9 (1.2–2.8) | 6 | 1.8 (1.1–2.9) | −0.0 (− 0.2–0.2) | 0.686 |
| CG | 5 | 2.5 (1.9–3.4) | 5 | 2.5 (1.5–3.7) | − 0.0 (− 0.6–0.6) | 0.686 | |
| P | 0.247 | 0.429 | 1.00 | ||||
| Pmax_CRT (W/kg) | IG | 6 | 10.9 (8.9–17.7) | 6 | 11.4 (9.6–18.6) | −0.1 (−1.1–1.3) | 0.600 |
| CG | 5 | 12.4 (8.1–14.2) | 5 | 10.9 (6.8–16.4) | 0.1 (−3.3–3.1) | 0.893 | |
| P | 0.792 | 0.792 | 1.00 | ||||
| Balance performance | |||||||
| STEO sway path (mm) | IG | 6 | 549 (447–591) | 6 | 579 (457–713) | 60 (2–236) | 0.046* |
| CG | 5 | 498 (333–794) | 5 | 471 (390–585) | −47 (− 220–128) | 0.225 | |
| P | 0.249 | 0.247 | 0.082 | ||||
| STEO standard ellipse (cm2) | IG | 6 | 3.6 (1.6–8.0) | 6 | 4.4 (2.8–6.8) | 0.9 (−1.1–2.3) | 0.345 |
| CG | 5 | 2.3 (0.8–7.7) | 5 | 3.6 (0.8–4.4) | 0.3 (−1.5–2.9) | 0.893 | |
| P | 0.249 | 0.247 | 0.622 | ||||
| STEC sway path (mm) | IG | 6 | 1117 (656–1386) | 6 | 1203 (668–1503) | 88 (49–214) | 0.028* |
| CG | 5 | 888 (13–2171) | 5 | 935 (655–1672) | −142 (−500–122) | 0.345 | |
| P | 0.792 | 0.429 | 0.126 | ||||
| STEC standard ellipse (cm2) | IG | 6 | 9.9 (3.2–12.2) | 6 | 9.4 (2.5–11.3) | 0.5 (−3.2–3.2) | 0.753 |
| CG | 5 | 5.1 (2.7–11.5) | 5 | 5.2 (1.7–9.1) | −0.9 (−2.4–0.6) | 0.225 | |
| P | 0.177 | 0.126 | 0.931 | ||||
| MSEO sway path (mm) | IG | 6 | 1621 (1295–2350) | 4 | 1360 (926–2462) | −125 (− 482–176) | 0.465 |
| CG | 5 | 1394 (1264–2111) | 5 | 1546 (1254–1731) | −53 (− 379–273) | 0.500 | |
| P | 0.429 | 0.556 | 1.00 | ||||
| MSEO standard ellipse (cm2) | IG | 6 | 8.0 (6.6–16.9) | 4 | 5.3 (3.6–8.1) | −3.2 (−11.6 – −0.6) | 0.068 |
| CG | 5 | 6.1 (3.9–8.3) | 5 | 5.5 (3.8–8.8) | −0.1 (−1.1–1.5) | 0.500 | |
| P | 0.177 | 0.730 | 0.063 | ||||
| Mobility (TUG) | |||||||
| Duration (sec) | IG | 6 | 6.2 (3.7–10) | 6 | 5 (2.9–7.7) | −1.3 (−2.5 – −0.7) | 0.027* |
| CG | 5 | 5.9 (4.5–17) | 5 | 5.5 (4.8–10.6) | −1.1 (−6.4–1) | 0.138 | |
| P | 0.662 | 0.329 | 1.00 | ||||
*indicates a significant difference (p < 0.05); aprescribes the treatment effect by point estimation and 95% confidence interval of the Hodges-Lehmann’s median differences for paired groups; ST semi-tandem stance with eyes open, ST semi-tandem stance with eyes closed, MS monopedal stance with eyes open, MS monopedal stance with eyes closed, TUG timed-up-and-go test