Logo image
Back
Supervised stationary cycling versus supervised treadmill walking for patients with intermittent claudication: preliminary results
Abstract   Peer reviewed

Supervised stationary cycling versus supervised treadmill walking for patients with intermittent claudication: preliminary results

B Sanderson, Christopher D Askew, P J Walker, I Stewart, S Green and H Gibbs
ANZ Journal of Surgery, Vol.74(9), p.A149
Australian and New Zealand Society for Vascular Surgery, 2004 (Rotorua, New Zealand, Sep-2004)
2004
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-2197.2004.03243.x
url
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-2197.2004.03243.xView
Published Version

Abstract

Clinical Sciences
Introduction: Walking programmes are recommended as part of the initial treatment for intermittent claudication (IC). However, for many patients factors such as frailty, the severe leg discomfort associated with walking and safety concerns about exercising in public areas reduce compliance to such prescription. Thus, there is a need to identify a mode of exercise that provides the same benefits as regular walking while also offering convenience and comfort for these patients. The present study aims to provide evidence for the first time of the efficacy of a supervised cycle training programme compared with a conventional walking programme for the treatment of IC. Methods: Thus far 33 patients have been randomized to: a treadmill-training group (n = 12); a cycle-training group (n = 11); or a control group (n = 10). Training groups participated in three sessions of supervised training per week for a period of 6 weeks. Control patients received no experimental intervention. Maximal incremental treadmill testing was performed at baseline and after the 6 weeks of training. Measures included pain-free (PFWT) and maximal walking time (MWT), continuous heart rate and gas-analysis recording, and ankle-brachial index assessment. Results: In the treadmill trained group MWT increased significantly from 1016.7 523.7 to 1255.2 432.2 s (P less than 0.05). MWT tended to increase with cycle training (848.72 333.18 to 939.54 350.35 s, P = 0.14), and remained unchanged in the control group (1555.1 683.23 to 1534.7 689.87 s). For PFWT, there was a non-significant increase in the treadmill-training group from 414.4 262.3 to 592.9 381.9 s, while both the cycle training and control groups displayed no significant change in this time (226.7 147.1 s to 192.3 56.8 and 499.4 503.7 s to 466.0 526.1 s, respectively). Conclusions: These preliminary results might suggest that, unlike treadmill walking, cycling has no clear effect on walking performance in patients with IC. Thus the current recommendations promoting walking based programmes appear appropriate. The present study was funded by the National Heart Foundation of Australia

Details

Metrics

5 File views/ downloads
525 Record Views
Logo image