Panacea Index Logo

Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

Moderate-pain versus pain-free exercise, walking capacity, and cardiovascular health in patients with peripheral artery disease.

Journal of vascular surgery
July 1, 2019
Marko Novaković et al. (7 authors)
Comparative StudyJournal ArticleRandomized Controlled TrialHuman StudyClinical
Study Details

Study Goal

The researchers aimed to compare the effects of moderate-pain and pain-free supervised walking training on walking capacity, quality of life, vascular function, biomarkers, and heart rate variability in patients with intermittent claudication.

Results Summary

Both moderate-pain and pain-free walking similarly improved walking capacity and quality of life, but only moderate-pain walking significantly improved vascular function (flow-mediated vasodilation and pulse wave velocity). Neither training program affected biomarker levels or heart rate variability.

Population

Adults (mean age 64 ± 9 years; 72% male) with intermittent claudication.

Effective Dosage

36 sessions, two or three times a week.

Duration

Not explicitly stated, but implied to span the 36 sessions.

Interactions

None mentioned.

Extracted Claims (12)
InterventionDirectionEndpointPopulationDosageImpactClaim #
moderate-pain walking
increase
initial walking distance
patients with intermittent claudication
median, 50 m to 107 m
significantly increased
#1
moderate-pain walking
increase
absolute walking distance
patients with intermittent claudication
median, 85 m to 194 m
significantly increased
#2
pain-free walking
increase
initial walking distance
patients with intermittent claudication
median, 53 m to 128 m
significantly increased
#3
pain-free walking
increase
absolute walking distance
patients with intermittent claudication
median, 92 m to 163 m
significantly increased
#4
moderate-pain walking
increase
quality of life
patients with intermittent claudication
-
improved
#5
pain-free walking
increase
quality of life
patients with intermittent claudication
-
improved
#6
moderate-pain walking
increase
flow-mediated vasodilation
patients with intermittent claudication
4.4% to 8.0%
statistically significant improvement
#7
moderate-pain walking
decrease
pulse wave velocity
patients with intermittent claudication
6.6 m/s to 6.1 m/s
statistically significant improvement
#8
moderate-pain walking
no change
biomarker levels
patients with intermittent claudication
-
no changes
#9
moderate-pain walking
no change
heart rate variability
patients with intermittent claudication
-
no changes
#10
pain-free walking
no change
biomarker levels
patients with intermittent claudication
-
no changes
#11
pain-free walking
no change
heart rate variability
patients with intermittent claudication
-
no changes
#12
Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Supervised exercise training (walking) is recommended in patients with intermittent claudication, both as a means to improve symptoms (walking distance and quality of life [QoL]) and as a means to improve general cardiovascular health (including vascular function and heart rate variability [HRV]). Our aim was to compare two types of supervised training (moderate-pain and pain-free walking) with comparable intensity based on heart rate, in terms of walking capacity, QoL, vascular function, biomarkers, and HRV in patients with intermittent claudication. METHODS: Thirty-six adults with intermittent claudication were randomized to either moderate-pain or pain-free exercise training (36 sessions, two or three times a week) or usual care (no supervised exercise). Initial walking distance and absolute walking distance using treadmill testing, flow-mediated vasodilation and pulse wave velocity using ultrasound, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and fibrinogen levels, HRV, and QoL (36-Item Short Form Health Survey questionnaire) were determined at baseline and after the intervention period. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients (mean age, 64 ± 9 years; 72% male) completed the study. Both training programs similarly improved walking capacity. Initial walking distance and absolute walking distance significantly increased with either moderate-pain walking (median, 50 m to 107 m [P = .005] and 85 m to 194 m [P = .005], respectively) or pain-free walking (median, 53 m to 128 m [P = .003] and 92 m to 163 m [P = .003], respectively). QoL also similarly improved with both training modalities, whereas only moderate-pain walking was also associated with a statistically significant improvement in the vascular parameters flow-mediated vasodilation (4.4% to 8.0%; P = .002) and pulse wave velocity (6.6 m/s to 6.1 m/s; P = .013). Neither training program was associated with changes in biomarker levels and HRV. CONCLUSIONS: Both moderate-pain and pain-free training modalities were safe and similarly improved walking capacity and health-related QoL. Conversely, vascular function improvements were associated with only moderate-pain walking.

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)
AgedBiomarkersExercise TherapyExercise ToleranceFemaleFibrinogenHealth StatusHeart RateHemodynamicsHumansIntermittent ClaudicationMaleMiddle AgedNatriuretic Peptide, BrainPain MeasurementPeptide FragmentsPeripheral Arterial DiseaseProspective StudiesQuality of LifeRecovery of FunctionSloveniaTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeVascular StiffnessVasodilationWalk TestWalking
Study Links
Quality Scores
Safety90
Efficacy85/10
Quality80/10
Citation Metrics
Total Citations26
Citations/Year4.3
Relative Citation Ratio1.95
NIH Percentile73.8%
Research Impact Scores
APT Score0.95
Weight Score2.32
Normalized Score0.86
Related Supplements
Moderate-pain versus pain-free exercise, walking capacity, a... | Panacea Index