Nota: Estas diretrizes se prestam a informar e não a substituir o julgamento clínico do médico que, em última análise, deve determinar o tratamento apropriado para seus pacientes.

No abstract

No abstract

Endothelial dysfunction is a characteristic of systemic arterial hypertension (SAH) and an early marker of atherosclerosis. Aerobic exercise training (AT) improves endothelial function. However, the effects of resistance training (RT) and combined training (CT) on endothelial function remain controversial in individuals with SAH. We determined the effects of AT, RT, and CT on endothelial function and systolic (SBP)/diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in individuals with prehypertension or hypertension. Forty-two participants (54 ± 11 y, resting SBP/DBP 137 ± 9/86 ± 6 mmHg) were randomly allocated into AT (n = 14, 40 min of cycling, 50–75% heart rate reserve), RT (n = 14, 6 resistance exercises, 4 × 12 repetitions, 60% maximum strength) and CT (n = 14, 2 × 12 repetitions of RT + 20 min of AT). All participants performed a 40-minute exercise session twice a week for 8 weeks. Endothelial function was evaluated by brachial artery flow-mediated dilation (FMD). Blood pressure was evaluated through ambulatory monitoring for 24 hours. After 8 weeks of exercise training, blood pressure was reduced in all 3 groups: −5.1 mmHg in SBP (95%CI –10.1, 0.0; p = 0.003) in AT; −4.0 mmHg in SBP (95%CI −7.8, −0.5; p = 0.027) in RT; and −3.2 mmHg in DBP (95%CI −7.9, 1.5; p = 0.001) in CT. All 3 exercise training modalities produced similar improvements in FMD: + 3.2% (95%CI 1.7, 4.6) (p < 0.001) in AT; + 4.0% (95%CI 2.1, 5.7) (p < 0.001) in RT; and +6.8% (95%CI 2.6, 11.1) (p = 0.006) in CT. In conclusion, different exercise training modalities were similarly effective in improving endothelial function but impacts on ambulatory blood pressure appear to be variable in individuals with prehypertension or hypertension.

No abstract

| Background: Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) is a common complication of diabetes mellitus, and pharmacological therapies are ineffective in many patients. Therefore, other treatment modalities should be considered, including electrical stimulation and electromagnetic fields. Objectives: The research objective was to evaluate the effect of treatment with electrical stimulation and electromagnetic fields on pain and sensitivity in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy compared with placebo or another intervention. Method: We searched the following electronic databases (from inception to April 2012): MEDLINE (accessed by PubMed), LILACS, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL. We included randomized trials that compared electrical stimulation or electromagnetic fields with control groups in which the objective was to assess pain and sensitivity in patients with PDN. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. A random-effects model was used for the main analysis. Results: The search retrieved 1336 articles, of which 12 studies were included. Reductions in the mean pain score were significantly greater in the TENS (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation) group than in the placebo group [-0.44 (95% CI: -0.79 to -0.09; I2: 0%)]. There was no improvement in pain relief when electromagnetic fields were compared with the control group [-0.69 (95% CI: -1.86 to 0.48; I2: 63%)]. Conclusions: We found that TENS improved pain relief in patients with diabetic neuropathy, while no such improvement was observed with the use of electromagnetic field treatment. Due to the methodological differences between the studies, a meta-analysis for the outcome of sensitivity could not be performed.Keywords: physical therapy; diabetic neuropathies; electrical stimulation; electromagnetic fields; pain; review. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE

The incidence of severe ischemic heart disease caused by coronary obstruction has progressively increased. Alternative forms of treatment have been studied in an attempt to regenerate myocardial tissue, induce angiogenesis, and improve clinical conditions. In this context, cell therapy has emerged as a promising alternative using cells with regenerative potential, focusing on the release of paracrine and autocrine factors that contribute to cell survival, angiogenesis, and tissue remodeling. Evidence of the safety, feasibility, and potential effectiveness of cell therapy has emerged from several clinical trials using different lineages of adult stem cells. The clinical benefit, however, is not yet well established. In this review, we discuss the therapeutic potential of cell therapy in terms of regenerative and angiogenic capacity after myocardial ischemia. In addition, we addressed nonpharmacological interventions that may influence this therapeutic practice, such as diet and physical training. This review brings together current data on pharmacological and nonpharmacological approaches to improve cell homing and cardiac repair.

No abstract