Why the study?
Does 12 weeks of supervised endurance and strength training improve peak aerobic capacity, muscle strength, and quality of life in renal transplant recipients compared to usual care?
Does 12 weeks of supervised endurance and strength training improve peak aerobic capacity, muscle strength, and quality of life in renal transplant recipients compared to usual care?
Supervised endurance and strength training over 12 weeks significantly improves peak aerobic capacity, cardiac output, muscle strength, and quality of life in clinically stable renal transplant recipients.
Supports supervised training in stable renal transplant recipients; leaves open durability and outcome impact.
Renal transplant recipients (RTR) have reduced peak aerobic capacity, muscle strength, arterial function and an unfavorable cardiovascular disease risk (CVD) profile. This study compared the effects of 12 weeks of supervised endurance and strength training (EST, n = 16) versus usual care (UC, n = 15) on peak aerobic capicity, cardiovascular and skeletal muscle function, CVD risk profile, and quality of life (QOL) in RTR (55 ± 13 years). Peak aerobic capacity and exercise hemodynamics, arterial compliance, 24-h blood pressure, muscle strength, lean body mass, CVD risk score, and QOL were assessed before and after 12 weeks. The change in peak aerobic capacity (EST: 2.6 ± 3.1 vs. UC: -0.5 ± 2.5 mL/(kg·min)), cardiac output (EST: 1.7 ± 2.6 vs. UC: -0.01 ± 0.8 L/min), leg press (EST: 48.7 ± 34.1 vs. UC: -10.5 ± 37.7 kg) and leg extension strength (EST: 9.5 ± 10.3 vs. UC: 0.65 ± 5.5 kg) improved significantly after EST compared with UC. The overall change in QOL improved significantly after 12 weeks of EST compared with UC. No significant difference was found between groups for lean body mass, arterial compliance, 24-h blood pressure or CVD risk score. Supervised EST is an effective intervention to improve peak exercise aerobic capacity and cardiac output, muscle strength and QOL in clinically stable RTR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Riess et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: