Hemodynamic changes and quality of life in patients with prostate cancer after a HIIT and MICT training. A randomized clinical trial (ONCO-EXE TRIAL)
Descripción del Articulo
Introduction. Prostate cancer is the most common in men and is the second cause of death. Exercise-based rehabilitation is effective and safe in mitigating cancer effects. Objective. To determine the hemodynamic changes and quality of life in prostate cancer after a high intensity...
| Autores: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | artículo |
| Fecha de Publicación: | 2019 |
| Institución: | Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos |
| Repositorio: | Revistas - Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos |
| Lenguaje: | español |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ojs.csi.unmsm:article/16218 |
| Enlace del recurso: | https://revistasinvestigacion.unmsm.edu.pe/index.php/anales/article/view/16218 |
| Nivel de acceso: | acceso abierto |
| Materia: | Neoplasias de la Próstata Calidad de Vida Rehabilitación Cardiaca Ejercicio Entrenamiento de Resistencia Ensayo Clínico |
| Sumario: | Introduction. Prostate cancer is the most common in men and is the second cause of death. Exercise-based rehabilitation is effective and safe in mitigating cancer effects. Objective. To determine the hemodynamic changes and quality of life in prostate cancer after a high intensity training (HIIT) or continuous to moderate intensity (MICT). Methods. A randomized clinical trial with 249 patients with stage II prostate cancer divided into 3 groups (MICT, HIIT and control group) who were applied EORTC QLQ C-30 questionnaire for quality of life, echocardiogram, stress test, vital signs and FACT-Fatigue Scale. The training program lasted 36 sessions of 70 minutes, 3 times a week. Results. When comparing the post-training results of the hemodynamic variables, we managed to determine changes in the ejection fraction (GE1: 49.0 ± 5.6 vs 52.0 ± 5.4, GE2: 45.0 ± 5.3 vs 51.0 ± 3.2, GC: 48.0 ± 4.1 vs 48.0 ± 4.4 p<0.005), maximum heart rate (GE1: 155.0 ± 7.0 vs 159.0 ± 4.0, GE2: 156.0 ± 14.0 vs 168.0 ± 5.0, GC: 155.0 ± 7.0 vs 155 ± 6.0, p<0.005). As in the results for quality of life (GE1: 55.1 ± 10.3 vs 70.9 ± 10.2, GE2: 59.8 ± 9.9 vs 118.0 ± 14.6, GC: 60.2 ± 7.6 vs 62.3 ± 9.4, p<0.005). Conclusions. HIIT and MICT significantly improved the quality of life, fatigue, and all hemodynamic variables evaluated in the research. Greater benefits were demonstrated with HIIT. The usual care control group without physical training did not show significant changes. |
|---|
Nota importante:
La información contenida en este registro es de entera responsabilidad de la institución que gestiona el repositorio institucional donde esta contenido este documento o set de datos. El CONCYTEC no se hace responsable por los contenidos (publicaciones y/o datos) accesibles a través del Repositorio Nacional Digital de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación de Acceso Abierto (ALICIA).
La información contenida en este registro es de entera responsabilidad de la institución que gestiona el repositorio institucional donde esta contenido este documento o set de datos. El CONCYTEC no se hace responsable por los contenidos (publicaciones y/o datos) accesibles a través del Repositorio Nacional Digital de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación de Acceso Abierto (ALICIA).