Tools
Tools
PYMER, Sean, IBEGGAZENE, Said, PALMER, Joanne, TEW, Garry A., INGLE, Lee, SMITH, George E., CHETTER, Ian C. and HARWOOD, Amy E. (2021). An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of home-based exercise programs for individuals with intermittent claudication. Journal of Vascular Surgery, 74 (6), 2076-2085.e20.
|
PDF
HEP_SR_JVS_Revision_4_Clean.pdf - Accepted Version Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives. Download (303kB) | Preview |
Abstract
Objective Supervised exercise programs (SEP) are effective for improving walking distance in patients with intermittent claudication (IC) but provision and uptake rates are suboptimal. Access to such programs has also been halted by the Coronavirus pandemic. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the evidence for home-based exercise programs (HEP). Methods This review was conducted in according with the published protocol and PRISMA guidance. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched for terms relating to HEP and IC. Randomized and nonrandomized trials that compared HEP with SEP, basic exercise advice, or no exercise controls for IC were included. A narrative synthesis was provided for all studies and meta-analyses conducted using data from randomized trials. The primary outcome was maximal walking distance. Subgroup analyses were performed to consider the effect of monitoring. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool and quality of evidence via GRADE. Results We included 23 studies with 1907 participants. Considering the narrative review, HEPs were inferior to SEPs which was reflected in the meta-analysis (mean distance [MD], 139 m; 95% confidence interval [CI], 45-232 m; P = .004; very low quality of evidence). Monitoring was an important component, because HEPs adopting this strategy were equivalent to SEPs (MD, 8 m; 95% CI, –81 to 97; P = .86; moderate quality of evidence). For HEPs vs basic exercise advice, narrative review suggested HEPs can be superior, although not always significantly so. For HEPs vs no exercise controls, narrative review and meta-analysis suggested HEPs were potentially superior (MD, 136 m; 95% CI, –2 to 273 m; P = .05; very low quality of evidence). Monitoring was also a key element in these comparisons. Other elements such as appropriate frequency (≥3× a week), intensity (to moderate-maximum pain), duration (20 progressing to 60 minutes) and type (walking) of exercise were important, as was education, self-regulation, goal setting, feedback, and action planning. Conclusions When SEPs are unavailable, HEPs are recommended. However, to elicit maximum benefit they should be structured, incorporating all elements of our evidence-based recommendations.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Additional Information: | ** Article version: AM ** Embargo end date: 19-11-2022 ** From Elsevier via Jisc Publications Router ** Licence for AM version of this article starting on 19-11-2022: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ **Journal IDs: issn 07415214 **History: issued 31-12-2021; published_online 19-11-2021; accepted 26-03-2021 |
| Identification Number: | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2021.03.063 |
| Page Range: | 2076-2085.e20 |
| SWORD Depositor: | Colin Knott |
| Depositing User: | Colin Knott |
| Date Deposited: | 22 Nov 2021 11:08 |
| Last Modified: | 11 Oct 2023 12:31 |
| URI: | https://shura.shu.ac.uk/id/eprint/29350 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
Downloads
Downloads per month over past year