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

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.