No abstract

Patients with end-stage kidney disease on dialysis have increased mortality and reduced physical activity, contributing to impaired physical function. Although exercise programs have demonstrated a positive effect on physiological outcomes such as cardiovascular function and strength, there is a reduced focus on physical function. The aim of this review was to determine whether exercise programs improve objective measures of physical function indicative of activities of daily living for patients with end-stage kidney disease on dialysis. A systematic search of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature identified 27 randomized control trials. Only randomized control trials using an exercise intervention or significant muscular activation in the intervention, a usual care, nonexercising control group, and at least one objective measure of physical function were included. Participants were ≥18 yr of age, with end-stage kidney disease, undergoing hemo- or peritoneal dialysis. Systematic review of the literature and quality assessment of the included studies used the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk bias. A meta-analysis was completed for the 6-min walk test. Data from 27 studies with 1,156 participants showed that exercise, regardless of modality, generally increased 6-min walk test distance, sit-to-stand time or repetitions, and grip strength as well as step and stair climb times or repetitions, dynamic mobility, and short physical performance battery scores. From the evidence available, exercise, regardless of modality, improved objective measures of physical function for end-stage kidney disease patients undergoing dialysis. It is acknowledged that further well-designed randomized control trials are required.

No abstract

Blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise is seen as a potential alternative to traditional training methods, and evidence suggests this is being used with both healthy and clinical populations worldwide. While the efficacy of the technique regarding muscular adaptations is well known, the safety of its use has been questioned. The purpose of this review was (i) provide an overview of the known reported side-effects whilst using BFR exercise; (ii) highlight risks associated with the cardiovascular system, and; (iii) suggest recommendations to minimize risk of complications in both healthy and clinical populations. Overall, reported side-effects include perceptual type responses (i.e. fainting, numbness, pain, and discomfort), delayed onset muscle soreness, and muscle damage. There may be heightened risk to the cardiovascular system, in particular increased blood pressure responses, thrombolytic events, and damage to the vasculature. However, while these may be of some concern there is no evidence to suggest that BFR exercise elevates the risk of complications any more than traditional exercise modes. Several modifiable extrinsic factors for risk minimization include selecting the appropriate BFR pressure and cuff width, as well as completion of a pre-exercise safety standard questionnaire to determine any contraindications to BFR or indeed the prescribed exercise. Based on the available evidence, we are confident that the sideeffects of using BFR are minimal, and further minimized by the use of an appropriate method of application in the hands of a trained practitioner.

Background Blood flow restriction exercise has increasingly broad applications among healthy and clinical populations. Ensuring the technique is applied in a safe, controlled, and beneficial way for target populations is essential. Individualized cuff pressures are a favored method for achieving this. However, there remains marked inconsistency in how individualized cuff pressures are applied. Objectives To quantify the cuff pressures used in the broader blood flow restriction exercise literature, and determine whether there is clear justification for the choice of pressure prescribed. Methods Studies were included in this review from database searches if they employed an experimental design using original data, involved either acute or chronic exercise using blood flow restriction, and they assessed limb or arterial occlusion pressure to determine an individualized cuff pressure. Methodologies of the studies were evaluated using a bespoke quality assessment tool. Results Fifty‐one studies met the inclusion criteria. Individualized cuff pressures ranged from 30% to 100% arterial occlusion pressure. Only 7 out of 52 studies attempted to justify the individualized cuff pressure applied during exercise. The mean quality rating for all studies was 11.1 ± 1.2 out of 13. Conclusions The broader blood flow restriction exercise literature uses markedly heterogeneous prescription variables despite using individualized cuff pressures. This is problematic in the absence of any clear justification for the individualized cuff pressures selected. Systematically measuring and reporting all relevant acute responses and training adaptations to the full spectrum of BFR pressures alongside increased clarity around the methodology used during blood flow restriction exercise is paramount.

Resistance training with blood flow restriction is typically performed during single exercises for the lower- or upper-body, which may not replicate real world programming. The present study examined the change in muscle strength and mass in a young healthy population during an 8-week whole body resistance training program, as well as monitoring these adaptations following a 4-week detraining period. Thirty-nine participants (27 males, 12 females) were allocated into four groups: blood flow restriction training (BFR-T); moderate-heavy load training (HL-T), light-load training (LL-T) or a non-exercise control (CON). Testing measurements were taken at Baseline, during mid-point of training (week 4), end of training (week 8) and following four weeks of detraining (week 12) and included anthropometrics, body composition, muscle thickness (MTH) at seven sites, and maximal dynamic strength (1RM) for six resistance exercises. Whole body resistance training with BFR significantly improved lower- and upper-body strength (overall; 11% increase in total tonnage), however, this was similar to LL-T (12%), but both groups were lower in comparison with HL-T (21%) and all groups greater than CON. Some markers of body composition (e.g., lean mass) and MTH significantly increased over the course of the 8-week training period, but these were similar across all groups. Following detraining, whole body strength remained significantly elevated for both BFR-T (6%) and HL-T (14%), but only the HL-T group remained higher than all other groups. Overall, whole body resistance training with blood flow restriction was shown to be an effective training mode to increase muscular strength and mass. However, traditional moderate-heavy load resistance training resulted in greater adaptations in muscle strength and mass as well as higher levels of strength maintenance following detraining.

Background: Blood flow restriction or KAATSU exercise training is associated with greater muscle mass and strength increases than non-blood flow restriction equivalent exercise. Blood flow restriction exercise has been proposed as a possible alternative to more physically demanding exercise prescriptions (such as high-load/high-intensity resistance training) in a range of clinical and chronic disease populations. While the maintenance of muscle mass and size with reduced musculoskeletal tissue loading appeals in many of these physically impaired populations, there remains a disconnect between some of the desired clinical measures for chronic disease populations and those commonly measured in the literature examining blood flow restriction exercise. While strength does play a vital role in physical function, task-specific objective measures of physical function indicative of activities of daily living are often more clinically relevant and applicable for evaluating the success of medical and surgical interventions or monitoring age- and disease-related physical decline. Objective: To determine whether exercise interventions utilizing blood flow restriction are able to improve objective measures of physical function indicative of activities of daily living. Methods: A systematic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Springer identified 13 randomized control trials utilizing an exercise intervention combined with blood flow restriction, while measuring at least one objective measure of physical function. Participants were ≥18 years of age. Systematic review of the literature and quality assessment of the included studies used the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk bias. Results: Data from 13 studies with a total of 332 participants showed blood flow restriction exercise, regardless of modality, most notably increased performance on the 30 s sit-to-stand and timed up and go tests, and generally improved physical function on other tests including walking tests, variations of sit-to-stand tests, and balance, jumping, and stepping tests. Conclusions: From the evidence available, blood flow restriction exercise of multiple modalities improved objective measures of physical function indicative of activities of daily living.

End-stage kidney disease is associated with reduced exercise capacity, muscle atrophy, and impaired muscle function. While these may be improved with exercise, single modalities of exercise do not traditionally elicit improvements across all required physiological domains. Blood flow-restricted exercise may improve all of these physiological domains with low intensities traditionally considered insufficient for these adaptions. Investigation of this technique appeals, but is yet to be evaluated, in patients undergoing dialysis. With the use of a progressive crossover design, 10 satellite patients undergoing hemodialysis underwent three exercise conditions over 2 wk: two bouts (10 min) of unrestricted cycling during two consecutive hemodialysis sessions ( condition 1), two bouts of cycling with blood flow restriction while off hemodialysis on 2 separate days ( condition 2), and two bouts of cycling with blood flow restriction during two hemodialysis sessions ( condition 3). Outcomes included hemodynamic responses (heart rate and blood pressure) throughout all sessions, participant-perceived exertion and discomfort on a Borg scale, and evaluation of ultrafiltration rates and dialysis adequacy (Kt/V) obtained post hoc. Hemodynamic responses were consistent regardless of condition. Significant increases in heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and mean arterial blood pressure ( P < 0.05) were observed postexercise followed by a reduction in blood pressures during the 60-min recovery (12, 5, and 11 mmHg for systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressures, respectively). Blood pressures returned to predialysis ranges following the recovery period. Blood flow restriction did not affect ultrafiltration achieved or Kt/V. Hemodynamic safety and tolerability of blood flow restriction during aerobic exercise on hemodialysis is comparable to standard aerobic exercise.