| Literature DB >> 31827679 |
Bruno Bavaresco Gambassi1,2, Hélio José Coelho-Junior1,3, Camila Paixão Dos Santos4, Ivan de Oliveira Gonçalves5, Cristiano Teixeira Mostarda6, Emanuele Marzetti3, Samir Seguins Sotão2, Marco Carlos Uchida1, Kátia De Angelis4, Bruno Rodrigues1.
Abstract
Stroke survivors are at substantial risk of recurrent cerebrovascular event or cardiovascular disease. Exercise training offers nonpharmacological treatment for these subjects; however, the execution of the traditional exercise protocols and adherence is constantly pointed out as obstacles. Based on these premises, the present study investigated the impact of an 8-week dynamic resistance training protocol with elastic bands on functional, hemodynamic, and cardiac autonomic modulation, oxidative stress markers, and plasma nitrite concentration in stroke survivors. Twenty-two patients with stroke were randomized into control group (CG, n = 11) or training group (TG, n = 11). Cardiac autonomic modulation, oxidative stress markers, plasma nitrite concentration, physical function and hemodynamic parameters were evaluated before and after 8 weeks. Results indicated that functional parameters (standing up from the sitting position (P = 0.011) and timed up and go (P = 0.042)) were significantly improved in TG. Although not statistically different, both systolic blood pressure (Δ = -10.41 mmHg) and diastolic blood pressure (Δ = -8.16 mmHg) were reduced in TG when compared to CG. Additionally, cardiac autonomic modulation (sympathovagal balance-LF/HF ratio) and superoxide dismutase were improved, while thiobarbituric acid reactive substances and carbonyl levels were reduced in TG when compared to the CG subjects. In conclusion, our findings support the hypothesis that dynamic resistance training with elastic bands may improve physical function, hemodynamic parameters, autonomic modulation, and oxidative stress markers in stroke survivors. These positive changes would be associated with a reduced risk of a recurrent stroke or cardiac event in these subjects.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31827679 PMCID: PMC6886348 DOI: 10.1155/2019/5382843
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oxid Med Cell Longev ISSN: 1942-0994 Impact factor: 6.543
Figure 1CONSORT flow diagram.
Figure 2Representation of resistance training protocol execution.
Baseline clinical characteristics of participants.
| CG ( | TG ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 60.5 ± 13.2 | 66.4 ± 10.1 | 0.334 |
| Body mass index (kg/cm2) | 26.0 ± 3.2 | 25.4 ± 2.9 | 0.089 |
| Women (%) | 63.6 | 54.5 | 0.120 |
| Poststroke duration (years) | 4.9 ± 4.2 | 6.6 ± 5.0 | 0.120 |
| Paretic side (left) (%) | 90.9 | 54.5 | 0.987 |
| Basic functional independence (Barthel Index) | 90.0 ± 6.3 | 87.3 ± 11.9 | 0.350 |
| Baecke Habitual Physical Activity Questionnaire | 3.8 ± 0.6 | 3.2 ± 0.4 | 0.884 |
| Associated comorbidities (%) | |||
| Hypertension | 90.9 | 90.9 | 1.000 |
| T2DM | 54.5 | 56.4 | 0.916 |
| Medications (%) | |||
| ACE inhibitors | 70.3 | 74.5 | 0.842 |
| HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor | 88.2 | 85.3 | 0.859 |
| Diuretics | 77.8 | 75.9 | 0.898 |
| Acetylsalicylic acid | 45.3 | 47.8 | 0.973 |
| Antidiabetics | 55.7 | 58.2 | 0.948 |
Data are shown as mean ± SD. CG: control group; TG: training group; T2DM: diabetes mellitus type II; ACE: angiotensin-converting enzyme; HMG-CoA: 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase.
Physical function at baseline and after 10 weeks.
| Variables | CG ( |
| TG ( |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Post | Baseline | Post | |||
| IHGPL (kgf) | 10.4 ± 8.9 | 7.9 ± 7.7∗ | -2.5 (0.3) | 13.8 ± 10.7 | 13.9 ± 10.0 | 0.1 (-0.0) |
| IHGNPL (kgf) | 28.5 ± 13.9 | 23.7 ± 10.8∗ | -4.8 (0.4) | 28.5 ± 7.3 | 28.1 ± 8.0 | -0.4 (0.1) |
| 10MWT (s) | 14.5 (10.4–31.5) | 13.5 (10.0–32.0) | 0.7 (-0.1) | 13.8 (10.0–42.4) | 10.2 (7.9–22.2)∗† | -6.4 (0.8) |
| Sit-to-stand (s) | 15.1 ± 2.9 | 14.4 ± 2.4 | -0.7 (0.3) | 15.7 ± 3.0 | 11.3 ± 1.7∗† | -4.4 (1.9) |
| TUG (s) | 22.2 ± 9.3 | 22.0 ± 7.1 | -0.2 (0.0) | 19.2 ± 8.3 | 14.1 ± 5.6∗† | -5.1 (0.7) |
SD: standard deviation of the mean; ES: effect size; CG: control group; TG: training group; IHGPL: isometric handgrip of the paretic limb; IHGNPL: isometric handgrip of the nonparetic limb; 10MWT: 10-meter walking speed; TUG: timed up and go. Data are shown as mean ± SD or median; ∗P < 0.05 vs. baseline; †P < 0.05 vs. CG.
Hemodynamic and autonomic parameters at baseline and after 10 weeks.
| Variables | CG ( |
| TG ( |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Post | Baseline | Post | |||
| Hemodynamics | ||||||
| SBP (mmHg) | 133 (94-139) | 129 (99-140) | 0.3 (-0.0) | 130 (94–139) | 121 (95–137) | -5.6 (0.4) |
| DBP (mmHg) | 79.2 ± 11.9 | 79.8 ± 10.9 | 0.6 (-0.1) | 72.5 ± 14.4 | 71.6 ± 12.4 | -0.9 (0.1) |
| HR (bpm) | 74.8 ± 14.4 | 76.5 ± 11.2 | 1.7 (-0.1) | 71.5 ± 11.9 | 65.1 ± 9.5† | -6.4 (0.6) |
| DP (mmHg × bpm) | 9938.1 ± 2226.8 | 9949.5 ± 1852.6 | 10.9 (0) | 8890.6 ± 1607.1 | 7722.0 ± 1375.2† | -1168.0 (0.8) |
| Autonomics | ||||||
| Time domain indexes | ||||||
| SDNN (ms) | 20.4 ± 8.2 | 19.4 ± 6.8 | -1.0 (0.1) | 23.9 ± 7.5 | 33.3 ± 10.8∗† | 9.4 (-1.0) |
| rMSSD (ms) | 17.2 ± 9.9 | 12.7 ± 5.2 | -4.5 (0.6) | 16.6 ± 8.3 | 23.7 ± 11.6∗† | 7.1 (-0.7) |
| Nonlinear indexes | ||||||
| SD1 (ms) | 12.2 ± 7.0 | 9.0 ± 3.7 | -3.2 (0.6) | 11.7 ± 5.8 | 16.8 ± 8.2∗† | 5.1 (-0.7) |
| SD2 (ms) | 25.7 ± 10.5 | 25.7 ± 9.6 | 0 (0) | 31.3 ± 10.5 | 43.1 ± 15.9∗† | 11.8 (-0.9) |
SD: standard deviation of the mean; ES: effect size; CG: control group; TG: training group; SBP: systolic blood pressure; DBP: diastolic blood pressure; DP: double product; SDNN: selected standard deviation of normal R-R intervals; rMSSD: square root of the mean squared differences between adjacent normal R-R intervals, expressed in ms; SD1: short variation of R-R interval; SD2: represents HRV in long-term records. Data are shown as mean ± SD or median; ∗P < 0.05 vs. baseline; †P < 0.05 vs. CG.
Figure 3Cardiac autonomic modulation. (a) Low-frequency band (LF, ms2). (b) Low-frequency band (LF, nu). (c) High-frequency band (HF, ms2). (d) High-frequency band (HF, nu). (e) Autonomic balance (LF/HF). Data are shown as mean ± SD or median. CG: control group; TG: training group; LF: low-frequency band; HF: high-frequency band; ∗P < 0.05 in comparison to baseline; †P < 0.05 in comparison to CG at the same moment.
Figure 4Oxidant markers. (a) Thiobarbituric acid reactive substances. (b) Carbonyls. (c) NADPH oxidase. (d) Nitrite peroxide (H2O2). Data are shown as mean ± SD. CG: control group; TG: training group. ∗P < 0.05 in comparison to baseline; †P < 0.05 in comparison to CG at the same moment.
Figure 5Antioxidant markers and plasma nitrite concentration. (a) Superoxide dismutase (SOD). (b) Catalase (CAT). (c) Nitrite. Data are shown as mean ± SD. CG: control group; TG: training group. ∗P < 0.05 in comparison to baseline; †P < 0.05 in comparison to CG at the same moment.