An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of home-based exercise programs for individuals with intermittent claudication.

J Vasc Surg

Department of Sport, Health & Exercise Science, University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom; Centre for Sport, Exercise and Life Sciences, Coventry University, Coventry, United Kingdom.

Published: December 2021

AI Article Synopsis

  • Supervised exercise programs (SEP) are more effective than home-based exercise programs (HEP) for improving walking distance in patients with intermittent claudication, although HEPs can still be beneficial under certain conditions.
  • Monitoring during HEP has been identified as crucial, making HEPs nearly as effective as SEPs when used appropriately.
  • The review analyzed 23 studies with 1,907 participants and highlighted that while HEPs may not always outperform basic exercise advice or no exercise at all, they show potential for improvement in walking distance when properly designed.

Article 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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2021.03.063DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

quality evidence
16
exercise programs
12
narrative review
12
review meta-analysis
8
exercise
8
home-based exercise
8
intermittent claudication
8
walking distance
8
basic exercise
8
exercise advice
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!