No abstract

Background Hypertension is a clinical condition highly prevalent in the elderly, imposing great risks to cardiovascular diseases and loss of quality of life. Current guidelines emphasize the importance of nonpharmacological strategies as a first-line approach to lower blood pressure. Exercise is an efficient lifestyle tool that can benefit a myriad of health-related outcomes, including blood pressure control, in older adults. We herein report the protocol of the HAEL Study, which aims to evaluate the efficacy of a pragmatic combined exercise training compared with a health education program on ambulatory blood pressure and other health-related outcomes in older individuals. Methods Randomized, single-blinded, multicenter, two-arm, parallel, superiority trial. A total of 184 subjects (92/center), ≥60 years of age, with no recent history of cardiovascular events, will be randomized on a 1:1 ratio to 12-week interventions consisting either of a combined exercise (aerobic and strength) training, three times per week, or an active-control group receiving health education intervention, once a week. Ambulatory (primary outcome) and office blood pressures, cardiorespiratory fitness and endothelial function, together with quality of life, functional fitness and autonomic control will be measured in before and after intervention. Discussion Our conceptual hypothesis is that combined training intervention will reduce ambulatory blood pressure in comparison with health education group. Using a superiority framework, analysis plan prespecifies an intention-to-treat approach, per protocol criteria, subgroups analysis, and handling of missing data. The trial is recruiting since September 2017. Finally, this study was designed to adhere to data sharing practices. Trial registration NCT03264443 . Registered on 29 August, 2017. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-019-6970-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of 12 weeks of muscle power training (MPT) on casual blood pressure (BP) (before and after each training session) and resting BP (pre-and post-training program) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) elderly. Methods: Twelve T2DM elderly individuals (68.75 ± 7.83 years), non-insulin-dependents participated in the present study and performed the MPT program twice a week. Casual BP was measured before and after training sessions, and resting BP was measured 48 h before the first and 48 h after the last training session. Results: Significant decrease in casual systolic (SBP) (−7.08 ± 4.12 mm Hg [effect size [ES]: −1.42 to −0.11]; p < 0.01) and diastolic (DBP) BP (−3.14 ± 1.24 mm Hg [ES: −1.24 to −0.18]; p > 0.01) was found after training sessions, without significant effect (p > 0.05) of the week along time or casual BP × week interaction. No significant change in resting SBP (−5.08 ± 8.93 mm Hg [ES: −0.41]; p = 0.07) and DBP (0.47 ± 6.06 mm Hg [ES: +0.11]; p = 0.79) was found. Conclusion: MPT was able to reduce casual BP after training sessions. However, there was no significant reduction in resting BP after MPT. Nevertheless, although not statistically significant, there were important clinical reductions in resting SBP in T2DM elderly patients.

Background The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus increases with age, and people with type 2 diabetes are more affected by reductions in functional performance. Although exercise interventions are recommended for people with diabetes, it is relevant to assess the effects of different training modes on the available functional outcomes. Therefore, our purpose was to systematically assess the effect of different physical exercise modalities in patients with type 2 diabetes with an average age of 45 years or older on outcomes used to measure functional capacity. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials was conducted. Seven databases were searched from January 1987 to December 2021 (PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cochrane Library, SPORTDiscus, and in grey literature: Open Grey and Google Scholar). Eligible studies should last 8 weeks or longer, comparing structured exercise training and non-exercise control for one out of six pre-specified functional capacity outcomes (Timed Up and Go test, chair stands, walking performance, upper-limb muscle strength, lower-limb muscle strength, physical fitness parameter), in patients with type 2 diabetes, aged ≥ 45 years. The risk of bias was assessed with the Downs & Black checklist. Pooled mean differences were calculated using a random-effects model, followed by sensitivity and meta-regression analyses. Results Of 18,112 references retrieved, 29 trials (1557 patients) were included. Among these, 13 studies used aerobic training, 6 studies used combined training, 4 studies used resistance training, 3 studies had multiple intervention arms and 3 studies used other types of training. Exercise training was associated with an increase in functional capacity outcomes, as reflected by changes in 6-min walk test (n = 8) [51.6 m; 95% CI 7.6% to 95.6%; I2 92%], one-repetition maximum leg-press (n = 3) [18.0 kg; 95% CI 4.0% to 31.9%; I2 0%], and maximum oxygen consumption (VO2max) (n = 20) [2.41 mL/kg·min; 95% CI 1.89% to 2.92%; I2 100%] compared with control groups. In sensitivity and subgroup analyses using VO2max as outcome and stratified by type of study (randomized and non-randomized controlled clinical trials), duration of diabetes diagnosis, and sex, we observed overlapping confidence intervals. Meta-regression showed no association between glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) levels and VO2max [p = 0.34; I2 99.6%; R2 = 2.6%]. In addition, the quality of the included studies was mostly low. Conclusion The results indicate that structured physical exercise programs might improve functional capacity in patients with type 2 diabetes, except for the upper-limb muscle strength. However, we could not identify potential effect predictors associated with directional summary estimates. Trial registration This systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42020162467); date of registration: 12/15/2019. The review protocol is hosted at the Open Science Framework (OSF) (Preprint https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/kpg2m).