Journal of hypertension · 2024
Isometric handgrip versus aerobic exercise: a randomized trial evaluating central and ambulatory blood pressure outcomes in older hypertensive participants.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jae Sae Young, Yoon Eun Sun, Kim Hyun Jeong, Cho Min Jeong, Choo Jina, Kim Jang-Young, Kunutsor Setor K
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: It remains unclear whether the hemodynamic effects of isometric handgrip exercise (IHG) are comparable to those of aerobic exercise (AE). This study investigated the efficacy of IHG in reducing central and ambulatory blood pressure in older hypertensive participants and compared its effects with AE.
METHODS: In a three-arm randomized controlled trial, 54 older hypertensive participants (age range: ≥60; mean age: 69 years) underwent 12 weeks of either IHG training ( n = 17), AE training ( n = 19), or were part of a no-exercise control group ( n = 18). IHG participants engaged in bilateral handgrips using a digital device, four times for 2 min each at 30% of maximal voluntary contraction. AE participants undertook brisk walking and cycling exercises at moderate intensity for 30 min, thrice weekly. Baseline and postintervention measurements included resting office, central, and 24-h ambulatory blood pressures.
RESULTS: Both IHG and AE interventions led to significant reductions in office and ambulatory systolic blood pressure compared to control group ( P < 0.05 for both), with no marked difference in the magnitude of systolic blood pressure reductions between the two groups. Notably, the IHG group exhibited greater reductions in office, central, and ambulatory diastolic blood pressure compared to the AE group and control group.
CONCLUSION: While both IHG and AE effectively lowered ambulatory systolic blood pressure, IHG demonstrated superior efficacy in reducing central and ambulatory diastolic blood pressure. Consequently, IHG training presents a promising alternative antihypertensive therapy for hypertensive participants over the age of 60.
METHODS: In a three-arm randomized controlled trial, 54 older hypertensive participants (age range: ≥60; mean age: 69 years) underwent 12 weeks of either IHG training ( n = 17), AE training ( n = 19), or were part of a no-exercise control group ( n = 18). IHG participants engaged in bilateral handgrips using a digital device, four times for 2 min each at 30% of maximal voluntary contraction. AE participants undertook brisk walking and cycling exercises at moderate intensity for 30 min, thrice weekly. Baseline and postintervention measurements included resting office, central, and 24-h ambulatory blood pressures.
RESULTS: Both IHG and AE interventions led to significant reductions in office and ambulatory systolic blood pressure compared to control group ( P < 0.05 for both), with no marked difference in the magnitude of systolic blood pressure reductions between the two groups. Notably, the IHG group exhibited greater reductions in office, central, and ambulatory diastolic blood pressure compared to the AE group and control group.
CONCLUSION: While both IHG and AE effectively lowered ambulatory systolic blood pressure, IHG demonstrated superior efficacy in reducing central and ambulatory diastolic blood pressure. Consequently, IHG training presents a promising alternative antihypertensive therapy for hypertensive participants over the age of 60.