Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Dynamic not isometric training blunts osteo-renal disease and improves the sclerostin/FGF23/Klotho axis in maintenance hemodialysis patients: a randomized clinical trial [with consumer summary]
Neves RVP, Correa HL, Deus LA, Reis AL, Souza MK, Simoes HG, Navalta JW, Moraes MR, Prestes J, Rosa TS
Journal of Applied Physiology 2021 Feb;130(2):508-516
clinical trial
4/10 [Eligibility criteria: No; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: No; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

This study compared the effectiveness of dynamic resistance training (DRT) versus isometric RT (IRT) on osteogenesis and hormonal mechanisms involved in maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) patients. One hundred and ninety-three MHD patients were randomized into three groups: control (CTL) (n = 60), DRT (n = 66), and IRT (n = 67). A first visit was required for an anamnesis to evaluate the number of medications, biochemical, and anthropometric measurements (dialysis adequacy, creatinine, urea, body mass, height, and body mass index). Grip strength, bone mineral density (BMD), and renal-bone markers were assessed pre- and postprotocol. The DRT and IRT training was 6 mo with a frequency of three times per week, on alternate days. Each training session consisted of three sets of 8 to 12 repetitions at lower and moderate intensities. Both training sessions were prescribed approximately 1 h prior to dialysis. Statistical significances were adopted with p < 0.05. There was a greater dropout in the IRT group (24%) as compared with the DRT group (14%), which in turn had less adverse clinical effects (67%, 24%, and 61% for CTL, DRT, and IRT, respectively). DRT promoted gains in BMD in different body locations, in addition to increasing pro-osteogenic factors (Klotho and calcitriol) and reducing those related to bone loss, such as sclerostin, FGF23, and PTH. There was an improvement in Ca x PO43 for DRT, whereas these benefits did not occur in the IRT group (p < 0.05). These novel findings suggest that the DRT generates biopositive adaptations in bone tissue in MHD and can be used as a nonpharmacological strategy to improve BMD.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help