OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the effect of pure aerobic exercise and combined aerobic resistance exercise on dialysis adequacy and quality of life in patients on maintenance hemodialysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 45 patients on maintenance hemodialysis were divided into three groups: pure aerobic exercise group, combined aerobic resistance exercise group, and control group. Patients in the control group were only given the usual treatment, which included dietary guidance, drug therapy, and hemodialysis. The other training groups underwent 12-week exercise intervention therapy on the basis of the usual treatment. Blood samples were collected before and after the hemodialysis, at the beginning and end of the intervention for these three groups. Then, the blood urea nitrogen (BUN) concentration was determined, the urea clearance index (Kt/v) and urea degradation rate (URR) were calculated, the dialysis adequacy was evaluated, and the short form-36 (SF-36) scale was used to evaluate the life quality. RESULTS: Before intervention, there was no significant difference in general health condition (GH), Kt/v, URR, SF-36 total score, and the score of each dimension in the three groups. After the intervention therapy, the Kt/v, URR, GH, vitality (VT), and SF-36 total score markedly improved in the pure aerobic exercise group, while the Kt/v, URR, GH, VT, physical functioning (PF), and SF-36 total score significantly increased in the combined aerobic resistance exercise group. Furthermore, compared with the pure aerobic exercise group, the improvement effect of body function (PF score) was better in the combined aerobic resistance exercise group. CONCLUSION: Both pure aerobic exercise and combined aerobic resistance exercise can significantly improve the dialysis adequacy and quality of life of maintenance hemodialysis patients. Compared with the pure aerobic exercise group, the effect of combined aerobic resistance exercise on PF was better. .
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the effect of pure aerobic exercise and combined aerobic resistance exercise on dialysis adequacy and quality of life in patients on maintenance hemodialysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 45 patients on maintenance hemodialysis were divided into three groups: pure aerobic exercise group, combined aerobic resistance exercise group, and control group. Patients in the control group were only given the usual treatment, which included dietary guidance, drug therapy, and hemodialysis. The other training groups underwent 12-week exercise intervention therapy on the basis of the usual treatment. Blood samples were collected before and after the hemodialysis, at the beginning and end of the intervention for these three groups. Then, the blood ureanitrogen (BUN) concentration was determined, the urea clearance index (Kt/v) and urea degradation rate (URR) were calculated, the dialysis adequacy was evaluated, and the short form-36 (SF-36) scale was used to evaluate the life quality. RESULTS: Before intervention, there was no significant difference in general health condition (GH), Kt/v, URR, SF-36 total score, and the score of each dimension in the three groups. After the intervention therapy, the Kt/v, URR, GH, vitality (VT), and SF-36 total score markedly improved in the pure aerobic exercise group, while the Kt/v, URR, GH, VT, physical functioning (PF), and SF-36 total score significantly increased in the combined aerobic resistance exercise group. Furthermore, compared with the pure aerobic exercise group, the improvement effect of body function (PF score) was better in the combined aerobic resistance exercise group. CONCLUSION: Both pure aerobic exercise and combined aerobic resistance exercise can significantly improve the dialysis adequacy and quality of life of maintenance hemodialysis patients. Compared with the pure aerobic exercise group, the effect of combined aerobic resistance exercise on PF was better. .
Authors: Olga López-Torres; Celia Azpeitia-Martínez; Marcela González-Gross; Dace Reihmane; Amelia Guadalupe-Grau Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-25 Impact factor: 3.390