Pilot study shows remotely supervised exercise training improves physical activity in kidney transplant recipients, highlighting adherence and environmental sustainability.
Background and Purpose Patients undergoing Kidney Transplant (KT) have a reduced mobility postoperative period and infection hazard because of immunosuppression. Remotely supervised exercise programs reduce muscle impairment, unnecessary patient displacement, and carbon footprint. Herein, we evaluate the outcomes of a remotely supervised program in KT recipients. Methods Twenty‐six recent KT recipients (12 in intervention group [IG] and 14 in control group [CG]) were recruited. IG conducted remotely supervised home‐based rehabilitation exercise training for 6 months. Participants performed 2 sessions of 50 min (aerobic and strength exercise) at moderate intensity on a weekly basis. CG received usual care. Patients were assessed 1 week after hospital discharge and at 6 months. The physical condition tests included: Handgrip Strength (HGS), 6‐Minute Walking Test, 30‐Second Sit‐to‐Stand Test, Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), and Timed Up and Go Test. Physical activity was evaluated by the IPAQ questionnaire. Adherence to the program and carbon footprint savings were also quantified. Results No significant differences were observed between the groups at baseline or after the intervention. Each group significantly improved most of the evaluated parameters; only the IG demonstrated a significant improvement of 3.3 kg in HGS ( p = 0.005) and a one‐point increase in the SPPB ( p = 0.026). Adherence to the exercise program had a 40% attendance rate and declined after the second month. IG showed a tendency to increase weekly physical activity levels. Our program impacted environmental sustainability. Discussion Our remote intervention for KT recipients demonstrated a tendency to increase muscle strength and functionality and contributed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Adherence strategies are essential to encourage KT to participate in such interventions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yuguero‐Ortiz et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: