-
International Journal of Environmental... Dec 2019Effective hypertrophy-oriented resistance training (RT) should comprise a combination of mechanical tension and metabolic stress. Regarding training variables, the most...
BACKGROUND
Effective hypertrophy-oriented resistance training (RT) should comprise a combination of mechanical tension and metabolic stress. Regarding training variables, the most effective values are widely described in the literature. However, there is still a lack of consensus regarding the efficiency of advanced RT techniques and methods in comparison to traditional approaches.
METHODS
MEDLINE and SPORTDiscus databases were searched from 1996 to September 2019 for all studies investigating the effects of advanced RT techniques and methods on muscle hypertrophy and training variables. Thirty articles met the inclusion criteria and were consequently included for the quality assessment and data extraction.
RESULTS
Concerning the time-efficiency of training, the use of agonist-antagonist, upper-lower body supersets, drop and cluster sets, sarcoplasma stimulating training, employment of fast, but controlled duration of eccentric contractions (~2s), and high-load RT supplemented with low-load RT under blood flow restriction may provide an additional stimulus and an advantage to traditional training protocols. With regard to the higher degree of mechanical tension, the use of accentuated eccentric loading in RT should be considered. Implementation of drop sets, sarcoplasma stimulating training, low-load RT in conjunction with low-load RT under blood flow restriction could provide time-efficient solutions to increased metabolic stress.
CONCLUSIONS
Due to insufficient evidence, it is difficult to provide specific guidelines for volume, intensity of effort, and frequency of previously mentioned RT techniques and methods. However, well-trained athletes may integrate advanced RT techniques and methods into their routines as an additional stimulus to break through plateaus and to prevent training monotony.
Topics: Humans; Hypertrophy; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training
PubMed: 31817252
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16244897 -
The American Journal of Sports Medicine Aug 2022Blood flow restriction (BFR) training has been shown to have beneficial effects in reducing quadriceps muscle atrophy and improving strength in patients with various... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Blood flow restriction (BFR) training has been shown to have beneficial effects in reducing quadriceps muscle atrophy and improving strength in patients with various knee pathologies. Furthermore, the effectiveness of BFR training in patients undergoing knee surgery has been investigated to determine if its use can improve clinical outcomes.
PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS
The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the effectiveness of BFR training in patients undergoing knee surgery. We hypothesized that BFR, before or after surgery, would improve clinical outcomes as well as muscle strength and volume.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis of peer-reviewed literature was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases from 1980 to present. Search results were limited to those assessing BFR training in patients undergoing knee surgery published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal in English. Selected studies subsequently underwent data extraction, methodological quality assessment, and data analysis.
RESULTS
Eleven studies were eligible, including anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (n = 10) and knee arthroscopy (n = 1). Two studies specifically assessed BFR use in the preoperative time frame. For the meta-analysis, including 4 studies, the primary outcome variables included the cross-sectional area of the quadratus femoris muscle group assessed with magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasonography, and patient-reported outcome measure scores. The results demonstrated that BFR use in the postoperative time period can lead to a significant improvement in the cross-sectional area when quantifying muscle atrophy. However, there were no significant differences found for patient-reported outcome measures between the included studies. It should be noted that 4 of the included papers in this review reported increases in clinical strength when using BFR in the postoperative setting. Last, preoperative BFR training did not show any significant clinical benefit between the 2 studies.
CONCLUSION
This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to study the effects of BFR in patients undergoing knee surgery. The results of this analysis show that BFR in the postoperative period after knee surgery can improve quadriceps muscle bulk compared with a control group. However, future research should examine the effects of preconditioning with BFR before surgery. Lastly, BFR protocols need to be further investigated to determine which provide the best patient outcomes. This will help standardize this type of treatment modality for future studies.
Topics: Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction; Humans; Muscle Strength; Muscular Atrophy; Quadriceps Muscle; Regional Blood Flow; Resistance Training
PubMed: 34406084
DOI: 10.1177/03635465211027296 -
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) Jan 2019The combination of low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction (BFR) has recently been shown to promote muscular adaptations in various populations. To... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The combination of low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction (BFR) has recently been shown to promote muscular adaptations in various populations. To date, however, evidence is sparse on how this training regimen influences muscle mass and strength in older adults.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to quantitatively identify the effects of low-load BFR (LL-BFR) training on muscle mass and strength in older individuals in comparison with conventional resistance training programmes. Additionally, the effectiveness of walking with and without BFR was assessed.
METHODS
A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. The systematic literature research was performed in the following electronic databases from inception to 1 June 2018: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and CENTRAL. Subsequently, a random-effects meta-analysis with inverse variance weighting was conducted.
RESULTS
A total of 2658 articles were screened, and 11 studies with a total population of N = 238 were included in the meta-analysis. Our results revealed that during both low-load training and walking, the addition of BFR elicits significantly greater improvements in muscular strength with pooled effect sizes (ES) of 2.16 (95% CI 1.61 to 2.70) and 3.09 (95% CI 2.04 to 4.14), respectively. Muscle mass was also increased when comparing walking with and without BFR [ES 1.82 (95% CI 1.32 to 2.32)]. In comparison with high-load training, LL-BFR promotes similar muscle hypertrophy [ES 0.21 (95% CI - 0.14 to 0.56)] but lower strength gains [ES - 0.42 (95% CI - 0.70 to - 0.14)].
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis reveals that LL-BFR and walking with BFR is an effective interventional approach to stimulate muscle hypertrophy and strength gains in older populations. As BFR literature is still scarce with regard to potential moderator variables (e.g. sex, cuff pressure or training volume/frequency), further research is needed for strengthening the evidence for an effective application of LL-BFR training in older people.
Topics: Aged; Constriction; Humans; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Regional Blood Flow; Resistance Training; Walking
PubMed: 30306467
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-018-0994-1 -
JAMA Neurology Mar 2021Spontaneous intracranial hypotension (SIH) is a highly disabling but often misdiagnosed disorder. The best management options for patients with SIH are still uncertain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Spontaneous intracranial hypotension (SIH) is a highly disabling but often misdiagnosed disorder. The best management options for patients with SIH are still uncertain.
OBJECTIVE
To provide an objective summary of the available evidence on the clinical presentation, investigations findings, and treatment outcomes for SIH.
DATA SOURCES
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on SIH. Three databases were searched from inception to April 30, 2020: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane. The following search terms were used in each database: spontaneous intracranial hypotension, low CSF syndrome, low CSF pressure syndrome, low CSF volume syndrome, intracranial hypotension, low CSF pressure, low CSF volume, CSF hypovolemia, CSF hypovolaemia, spontaneous spinal CSF leak, spinal CSF leak, and CSF leak syndrome.
STUDY SELECTION
Original studies in English language reporting 10 or more patients with SIH were selected by consensus.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data on clinical presentation, investigations findings, and treatment outcomes were collected and summarized by multiple observers. Random-effect meta-analyses were used to calculate pooled estimates of means and proportions.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The predetermined main outcomes were the pooled estimate proportions of symptoms of SIH, imaging findings (brain and spinal imaging), and treatment outcomes (conservative, epidural blood patches, and surgical).
RESULTS
Of 6878 articles, 144 met the selection criteria and reported on average 53 patients with SIH each (range, 10-568 patients). The most common symptoms were orthostatic headache (92% [95% CI, 87%-96%]), nausea (54% [95% CI, 46%-62%]), and neck pain/stiffness (43% [95% CI, 32%-53%]). Brain magnetic resonance imaging was the most sensitive investigation, with diffuse pachymeningeal enhancement identified in 73% (95% CI, 67%-80%) of patients. Brain magnetic resonance imaging findings were normal in 19% (95% CI, 13%-24%) of patients. Spinal neuroimaging identified extradural cerebrospinal fluid in 48% to 76% of patients. Digital subtraction myelography and magnetic resonance myelography with intrathecal gadolinium had high sensitivity in identifying the exact leak site. Lumbar puncture opening pressures were low, normal (60-200 mm H2O), and high in 67% (95% CI, 54%-80%), 32% (95% CI, 20%-44%), and 3% (95% CI, 1%-6%), respectively. Conservative treatment was effective in 28% (95% CI, 18%-37%) of patients and a single epidural blood patch was successful in 64% (95% CI, 56%-72%). Large epidural blood patches (>20 mL) had better success rates than small epidural blood patches (77% [95% CI, 63%-91%] and 66% [95% CI, 55%-77%], respectively).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Spontaneous intracranial hypotension should not be excluded on the basis of a nonorthostatic headache, normal neuroimaging findings, or normal lumbar puncture opening pressure. Despite the heterogeneous nature of the studies available in the literature and the lack of controlled interventional studies, this systematic review offers a comprehensive and objective summary of the evidence on SIH that could be useful in guiding clinical practice and future research.
Topics: Blood Patch, Epidural; Conservative Treatment; Humans; Intracranial Hypotension; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33393980
DOI: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.4799 -
Addiction (Abingdon, England) Jun 2017Alcohol use is a major contributor to injuries, mortality and the burden of disease. This review updates knowledge on risk relations between dimensions of alcohol use... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Alcohol use is a major contributor to injuries, mortality and the burden of disease. This review updates knowledge on risk relations between dimensions of alcohol use and health outcomes to be used in global and national Comparative Risk Assessments (CRAs).
METHODS
Systematic review of reviews and meta-analyses on alcohol consumption and health outcomes attributable to alcohol use. For dimensions of exposure: volume of alcohol use, blood alcohol concentration and patterns of drinking, in particular heavy drinking occasions were studied. For liver cirrhosis, quality of alcohol was additionally considered. For all outcomes (mortality and/or morbidity): cause of death and disease/injury categories based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes used in global CRAs; harm to others.
RESULTS
In total, 255 reviews and meta-analyses were identified. Alcohol use was found to be linked causally to many disease and injury categories, with more than 40 ICD-10 three-digit categories being fully attributable to alcohol. Most partially attributable disease categories showed monotonic relationships with volume of alcohol use: the more alcohol consumed, the higher the risk of disease or death. Exceptions were ischaemic diseases and diabetes, with curvilinear relationships, and with beneficial effects of light to moderate drinking in people without heavy irregular drinking occasions. Biological pathways suggest an impact of heavy drinking occasions on additional diseases; however, the lack of medical epidemiological studies measuring this dimension of alcohol use precluded an in-depth analysis. For injuries, except suicide, blood alcohol concentration was the most important dimension of alcohol use. Alcohol use caused marked harm to others, which has not yet been researched sufficiently.
CONCLUSIONS
Research since 2010 confirms the importance of alcohol use as a risk factor for disease and injuries; for some health outcomes, more than one dimension of use needs to be considered. Epidemiological studies should include measurement of heavy drinking occasions in line with biological knowledge.
Topics: Alcoholism; Causality; Chronic Disease; Comorbidity; Cost of Illness; Health Status; Humans; Risk Assessment; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 28220587
DOI: 10.1111/add.13757 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018Critically ill people may lose fluid because of serious conditions, infections (e.g. sepsis), trauma, or burns, and need additional fluids urgently to prevent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Critically ill people may lose fluid because of serious conditions, infections (e.g. sepsis), trauma, or burns, and need additional fluids urgently to prevent dehydration or kidney failure. Colloid or crystalloid solutions may be used for this purpose. Crystalloids have small molecules, are cheap, easy to use, and provide immediate fluid resuscitation, but may increase oedema. Colloids have larger molecules, cost more, and may provide swifter volume expansion in the intravascular space, but may induce allergic reactions, blood clotting disorders, and kidney failure. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of using colloids versus crystalloids in critically ill people requiring fluid volume replacement on mortality, need for blood transfusion or renal replacement therapy (RRT), and adverse events (specifically: allergic reactions, itching, rashes).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two other databases on 23 February 2018. We also searched clinical trials registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of critically ill people who required fluid volume replacement in hospital or emergency out-of-hospital settings. Participants had trauma, burns, or medical conditions such as sepsis. We excluded neonates, elective surgery and caesarean section. We compared a colloid (suspended in any crystalloid solution) versus a crystalloid (isotonic or hypertonic).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Independently, two review authors assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and synthesised findings. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 69 studies (65 RCTs, 4 quasi-RCTs) with 30,020 participants. Twenty-eight studied starch solutions, 20 dextrans, seven gelatins, and 22 albumin or fresh frozen plasma (FFP); each type of colloid was compared to crystalloids.Participants had a range of conditions typical of critical illness. Ten studies were in out-of-hospital settings. We noted risk of selection bias in some studies, and, as most studies were not prospectively registered, risk of selective outcome reporting. Fourteen studies included participants in the crystalloid group who received or may have received colloids, which might have influenced results.We compared four types of colloid (i.e. starches; dextrans; gelatins; and albumin or FFP) versus crystalloids.Starches versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using starches or crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.09; 11,177 participants; 24 studies); within 90 days (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 10,415 participants; 15 studies); or within 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.09; 10,135 participants; 11 studies).We found moderate-certainty evidence that starches probably slightly increase the need for blood transfusion (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.39; 1917 participants; 8 studies), and RRT (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.48; 8527 participants; 9 studies). Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether either fluid affected adverse events: we found little or no difference in allergic reactions (RR 2.59, 95% CI 0.27 to 24.91; 7757 participants; 3 studies), fewer incidences of itching with crystalloids (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.82; 6946 participants; 2 studies), and fewer incidences of rashes with crystalloids (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.89; 7007 participants; 2 studies).Dextrans versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using dextrans or crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.11; 4736 participants; 19 studies); or within 90 days or 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; 3353 participants; 10 studies). We are uncertain whether dextrans or crystalloids reduce the need for blood transfusion, as we found little or no difference in blood transfusions (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10; 1272 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). We found little or no difference in allergic reactions (RR 6.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 144.93; 739 participants; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies measured RRT.Gelatins versus crystalloidsWe found low-certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference between gelatins or crystalloids in mortality: at end of follow-up (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.08; 1698 participants; 6 studies); within 90 days (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09; 1388 participants; 1 study); or within 30 days (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.16; 1388 participants; 1 study). Evidence for blood transfusion was very low certainty (3 studies), with a low event rate or data not reported by intervention. Data for RRT were not reported separately for gelatins (1 study). We found little or no difference between groups in allergic reactions (very low-certainty evidence).Albumin or FFP versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using albumin or FFP or using crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06; 13,047 participants; 20 studies); within 90 days (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.04; 12,492 participants; 10 studies); or within 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; 12,506 participants; 10 studies). We are uncertain whether either fluid type reduces need for blood transfusion (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.80; 290 participants; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Using albumin or FFP versus crystalloids may make little or no difference to the need for RRT (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.27; 3028 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), or in allergic reactions (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.33; 2097 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Using starches, dextrans, albumin or FFP (moderate-certainty evidence), or gelatins (low-certainty evidence), versus crystalloids probably makes little or no difference to mortality. Starches probably slightly increase the need for blood transfusion and RRT (moderate-certainty evidence), and albumin or FFP may make little or no difference to the need for renal replacement therapy (low-certainty evidence). Evidence for blood transfusions for dextrans, and albumin or FFP, is uncertain. Similarly, evidence for adverse events is uncertain. Certainty of evidence may improve with inclusion of three ongoing studies and seven studies awaiting classification, in future updates.
Topics: Colloids; Critical Illness; Crystalloid Solutions; Fluid Therapy; Humans; Isotonic Solutions; Plasma Substitutes; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rehydration Solutions; Renal Replacement Therapy
PubMed: 30073665
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000567.pub7 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2017Prostate cancer is commonly diagnosed in men worldwide. Surgery, in the form of radical prostatectomy, is one of the main forms of treatment for men with localised... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Prostate cancer is commonly diagnosed in men worldwide. Surgery, in the form of radical prostatectomy, is one of the main forms of treatment for men with localised prostate cancer. Prostatectomy has traditionally been performed as open surgery, typically via a retropubic approach. The advent of laparoscopic approaches, including robotic-assisted, provides a minimally invasive alternative to open radical prostatectomy (ORP).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy or robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy in men with localised prostate cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE) and abstract proceedings with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status, up until 9 June 2017. We also searched bibliographies of included studies and conference proceedings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a direct comparison of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) to ORP, including pseudo-RCTs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data. The primary outcomes were prostate cancer-specific survival, urinary quality of life and sexual quality of life. Secondary outcomes were biochemical recurrence-free survival, overall survival, overall surgical complications, serious postoperative surgical complications, postoperative pain, hospital stay and blood transfusions. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of the evidence according to GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two unique studies with 446 randomised participants with clinically localised prostate cancer. The mean age, prostate volume, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of the participants were 61.3 years, 49.78 mL, and 7.09 ng/mL, respectively. Primary outcomes We found no study that addressed the outcome of prostate cancer-specific survival. Based on data from one trial, RARP likely results in little to no difference in urinary quality of life (MD -1.30, 95% CI -4.65 to 2.05) and sexual quality of life (MD 3.90, 95% CI -1.84 to 9.64). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate for both quality of life outcomes, downgrading for study limitations. Secondary outcomes We found no study that addressed the outcomes of biochemical recurrence-free survival or overall survival.Based on one trial, RARP may result in little to no difference in overall surgical complications (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.04) or serious postoperative complications (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.32). We rated the quality of evidence as low for both surgical complications, downgrading for study limitations and imprecision.Based on two studies, LRP or RARP may result in a small, possibly unimportant improvement in postoperative pain at one day (MD -1.05, 95% CI -1.42 to -0.68 ) and up to one week (MD -0.78, 95% CI -1.40 to -0.17). We rated the quality of evidence for both time-points as low, downgrading for study limitations and imprecision. Based on one study, RARP likely results in little to no difference in postoperative pain at 12 weeks (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.34). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, downgrading for study limitations.Based on one study, RARP likely reduces the length of hospital stay (MD -1.72, 95% CI -2.19 to -1.25). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, downgrading for study limitations.Based on two study, LRP or RARP may reduce the frequency of blood transfusions (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.46). Assuming a baseline risk for a blood transfusion to be 8.9%, LRP or RARP would result in 68 fewer blood transfusions per 1000 men (95% CI 78 fewer to 48 fewer). We rated the quality of evidence as low, downgrading for study limitations and indirectness.We were unable to perform any of the prespecified secondary analyses based on the available evidence. All available outcome data were short-term and we were unable to account for surgeon volume or experience.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no high-quality evidence to inform the comparative effectiveness of LRP or RARP compared to ORP for oncological outcomes. Urinary and sexual quality of life-related outcomes appear similar.Overall and serious postoperative complication rates appear similar. The difference in postoperative pain may be minimal. Men undergoing LRP or RARP may have a shorter hospital stay and receive fewer blood transfusions. All available outcome data were short-term, and this study was unable to account for surgeon volume or experience.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Middle Aged; Organ Size; Prostate; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Sexual Behavior; Urination
PubMed: 28895658
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009625.pub2 -
International Journal of Environmental... Jun 2021This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to provide scientific evidence regarding the effects of training on respiratory muscle training's impact with the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Inspiratory Muscle Training Program Using the PowerBreath: Does It Have Ergogenic Potential for Respiratory and/or Athletic Performance? A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.
This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to provide scientific evidence regarding the effects of training on respiratory muscle training's impact with the PowerBreath. A systematic analysis based on the guides and a conducted research structured around the bases of Web of Science, Scopus, Medline/PubMed, SciELO y Cochrane Library Plus. Six articles published before January 2021 were included. The documentation and quantification of heterogeneity in every meta-analysis were directed through Cochran's Q test and the statistic I; additionally, a biased publication analysis was made using funnel plots, whose asymmetry was quantified Egger's regression. The methodological quality was assessed through McMaster's. PowerBreath administering a ≥ 15% resistive load of the maximum inspiratory pressure (PIM) achieves significant improvements (54%) in said pressure within 4 weeks of commencing the inspiratory muscle training. The maximal volume of oxygen (VOmax) considerable enhancements was achieved from the 6 weeks associated with the maximum inspiratory pressure ≥ 21.5% post inspiratory muscle training onwards. Conversely, a significant blood lactate concentration decrement occurred from the 4th week of inspiratory muscle training, after a maximum inspiratory pressure ≥ 6.8% increment. PowerBreath is a useful device to stimulate sport performance and increase pulmonary function.
Topics: Athletic Performance; Breathing Exercises; Lung; Respiratory Muscles; Respiratory Therapy
PubMed: 34206354
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18136703 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2013Colloid solutions are widely used in fluid resuscitation of critically ill patients. There are several choices of colloid, and there is ongoing debate about the relative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Colloid solutions are widely used in fluid resuscitation of critically ill patients. There are several choices of colloid, and there is ongoing debate about the relative effectiveness of colloids compared to crystalloid fluids.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of colloids compared to crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register (17 October 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library) (Issue 10, 2012), MEDLINE (Ovid) 1946 to October 2012, EMBASE (Ovid) 1980 to October 2012, ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (1970 to October 2012), ISI Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (1990 to October 2012), PubMed (October 2012), www.clinical trials.gov and www.controlled-trials.com. We also searched the bibliographies of relevant studies and review articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of colloids compared to crystalloids, in patients requiring volume replacement. We excluded cross-over trials and trials involving pregnant women and neonates.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and rated quality of allocation concealment. We analysed trials with a 'double-intervention', such as those comparing colloid in hypertonic crystalloid to isotonic crystalloid, separately. We stratified the analysis according to colloid type and quality of allocation concealment.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 78 eligible trials; 70 of these presented mortality data.COLLOIDS COMPARED TO CRYSTALLOIDS: Albumin or plasma protein fraction - 24 trials reported data on mortality, including a total of 9920 patients. The pooled risk ratio (RR) from these trials was 1.01 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.10). When we excluded the trial with poor-quality allocation concealment, pooled RR was 1.00 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.09). Hydroxyethyl starch - 25 trials compared hydroxyethyl starch with crystalloids and included 9147 patients. The pooled RR was 1.10 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.19). Modified gelatin - 11 trials compared modified gelatin with crystalloid and included 506 patients. The pooled RR was 0.91 (95% CI 0.49 to 1.72). (When the trials by Boldt et al were removed from the three preceding analyses, the results were unchanged.) Dextran - nine trials compared dextran with a crystalloid and included 834 patients. The pooled RR was 1.24 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.65). COLLOIDS IN HYPERTONIC CRYSTALLOID COMPARED TO ISOTONIC CRYSTALLOID: Nine trials compared dextran in hypertonic crystalloid with isotonic crystalloid, including 1985 randomised participants. Pooled RR for mortality was 0.91 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.06).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials that resuscitation with colloids reduces the risk of death, compared to resuscitation with crystalloids, in patients with trauma, burns or following surgery. Furthermore, the use of hydroxyethyl starch might increase mortality. As colloids are not associated with an improvement in survival and are considerably more expensive than crystalloids, it is hard to see how their continued use in clinical practice can be justified.
Topics: Albumins; Blood Proteins; Colloids; Critical Illness; Crystalloid Solutions; Dextrans; Fluid Therapy; Gelatin; Humans; Hydroxyethyl Starch Derivatives; Isotonic Solutions; Plasma Substitutes; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rehydration Solutions; Resuscitation
PubMed: 23450531
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000567.pub6 -
Nutricion Hospitalaria Apr 2015In Spain, nearly 14% of the population is diabetic, 95% corresponds to Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus patients. Poor glycemic control increases morbidity and mortality. There... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
In Spain, nearly 14% of the population is diabetic, 95% corresponds to Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus patients. Poor glycemic control increases morbidity and mortality. There are three pillars in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: diet, medication and exercise. However, the potential for prescribing exercise training has not been fully exploited.
OBJECTIVE
To analyze the effect of different exercise modalities (AE, RT, Combo, HIIT) on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
METHODS
The reserch was performed in 3 electronic databases (Pubmed, Scopus and Proquest), including publications from 2011 to the present, publications undertaking interventions with AE, RT, Combo or HIIT, and those that measured capillary glucose, CGMS or HbA1c.
RESULTS
Of the 386 articles found, 14 met the inclusion criteria. These items were classified according to exercise intervention modality (AE, RT, Combo, HIIT) and whether glycemic control was measured as a result of continued training or 24-48h post-workout.
CONCLUSIONS
EA, RT, Combo and HIIT show efficacy in glycemic control in both the continuous training and 24-48h post-training. To achieve certain benefits in glycemic control, prescribing a structured frequency, volume and intensity training is required. Combo is the modality that gets better results through continued training.
Topics: Blood Glucose; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Exercise; Exercise Therapy; Humans
PubMed: 25795929
DOI: 10.3305/nh.2015.31.4.7907