Physical exercise for the treatment of non-ulcerated chronic venous insufficiency.

BACKGROUND: Chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) is a condition related to chronic venous disease that may progress to venous leg ulceration and impair quality of life of those affected. Treatments such as physical exercise may be useful to reduce CVI symptoms. This is an update of an earlier Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of physical exercise programmes for the treatment of individuals with non-ulcerated CVI. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 28 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing exercise programmes with no exercise in people with non-ulcerated CVI. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were intensity of disease signs and symptoms, ejection fraction, venous refilling time, and incidence of venous leg ulcer. Our secondary outcomes were quality of life, exercise capacity, muscle strength, incidence of surgical intervention, and ankle joint mobility. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs involving 146 participants. The studies compared a physical exercise group with a control group that did not perform a structured exercise programme. The exercise protocols differed between studies. We assessed three studies to be at an overall unclear risk of bias, one study at overall high risk of bias, and one study at overall low risk of bias. We were not able to combine data in meta-analysis as studies did not report all outcomes, and different methods were used to measure and report outcomes. Two studies reported intensity of CVI disease signs and symptoms using a validated scale. There was no clear difference in signs and symptoms between groups in baseline to six months after treatment (Venous Clinical Severity Score mean difference (MD) -0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.02 to 2.26; 28 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), and we are uncertain if exercise alters the intensity of signs and symptoms eight weeks after treatment (MD -4.07, 95% CI -6.53 to -1.61; 21 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in ejection fraction between groups from baseline to six months follow-up (MD 4.88, 95% CI -1.82 to 11.58; 28 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Three studies reported on venous refilling time. We are uncertain if there is an improvement in venous refilling time between groups for baseline to six-month changes (MD 10.70 seconds, 95% CI 8.86 to 12.54; 23 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence) or baseline to eight-week change (MD 9.15 seconds, 95% CI 5.53 to 12.77 for right side; MD 7.25 seconds, 95% CI 5.23 to 9.27 for left side; 21 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in venous refilling index for baseline to six-month changes (MD 0.57 mL/min, 95% CI -0.96 to 2.10; 28 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported the incidence of venous leg ulcers. One study reported health-related quality of life using validated instruments (Venous Insufficiency Epidemiological and Economic Study (VEINES) and 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), physical component score (PCS) and mental component score (MCS)). We are uncertain if exercise alters baseline to six-month changes in health-related quality of life between groups (VEINES-QOL: MD 4.60, 95% CI 0.78 to 8.42; SF-36 PCS: MD 5.40, 95% CI 0.63 to 10.17; SF-36 MCS: MD 0.40, 95% CI -3.85 to 4.65; 40 participants, 1 study; all very low-certainty evidence). Another study used the Chronic Venous Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire (CIVIQ-20), and we are uncertain if exercise alters baseline to eight-week changes in health-related quality of life between groups (MD 39.36, 95% CI 30.18 to 48.54; 21 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). One study reported no differences between groups without presenting data. There was no clear difference between groups in exercise capacity measured as time on treadmill (baseline to six-month changes) (MD -0.53 minutes, 95% CI -5.25 to 4.19; 35 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if exercise improves exercise capacity as assessed by the 6-minute walking test (MD 77.74 metres, 95% CI 58.93 to 96.55; 21 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Muscle strength was measured using dynamometry or using heel lifts counts. We are uncertain if exercise increases peak torque/body weight (120 revolutions per minute) (changes from baseline to six months MD 3.10 ft-lb, 95% CI 0.98 to 5.22; 29 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference between groups in baseline to eight-week change in strength measured by a hand dynamometer (MD 12.24 lb, 95% CI -7.61 to 32.09 for the right side; MD 11.25, 95% CI -14.10 to 36.60 for the left side; 21 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if there is an increase in heel lifts (n) (baseline to six-month changes) between groups (MD 7.70, 95% CI 0.94 to 14.46; 39 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference between groups in ankle mobility measured during dynamometry (baseline to six-month change MD -1.40 degrees, 95% CI -4.77 to 1.97; 29 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if exercise increases plantar flexion measured by a goniometer (baseline to eight-week change MD 12.13 degrees, 95% CI 8.28 to 15.98 for right leg; MD 10.95 degrees, 95% CI 7.93 to 13.97 for left leg; 21 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). In all cases, we downgraded the certainty of evidence due to risk of bias and imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence to assess the benefits and harms of physical exercise in people with chronic venous disease. Future research into the effect of physical exercise should consider types of exercise protocols (intensity, frequency, and time), sample size, blinding, and homogeneity according to the severity of disease.

Physical exercise for the treatment of non-ulcerated chronic venous insufficiency.

BACKGROUND: Chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) is a common disease that causes discomfort and impairs the quality of life of affected persons. Treatments such as physical exercise that aim to increase the movement of the ankle joint and strengthen the muscle pump in the calf of the leg may be useful to reduce the symptoms of CVI. OBJECTIVES: To assess and summarise the existing clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of physical exercise programmes for the treatment of individuals with non-ulcerated CVI. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (May 2016). In addition, the CIS searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 4) and trial databases for details of ongoing or unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing exercise with no exercise programmes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the search results and selected eligible studies. We resolved disagreements by discussion. We summarised and double-checked details from included studies. We attempted to contact trial authors for missing data, but obtained no further information. MAIN RESULTS: We included two trials involving 54 participants with CVI. Many of our review outcomes were not reported or reported by only one of the two studies. The intensity of disease signs and symptoms was measured in both studies but using different scales; we were therefore unable to pool the data. One study reported no difference between the exercise and control groups whereas the second reported a reduction in symptoms in the exercise group. In one study, increases in change in ejection fraction compared with baseline (mean difference (MD) 4.88%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.16 to 6.60; 30 participants; P < 0.00001), half venous refilling time (MD 4.20 seconds, 95% CI 3.28 to 5.12; 23 participants; P < 0.00001) and total venous refilling time (MD 9.40 seconds, 95% CI 7.77 to 11.03; 23 participants; P < 0.00001) were observed in the exercise group compared with the control group. One study reported no difference between the exercise and control groups with regard to quality of life or ankle range of motion. Although muscle strength assessed by dynamometry at slow speed did not differ between the two groups in this study, variable peak torque at fast speed was lower in the control group than in the exercise group (2.8 ± 0.9 compared with -0.3 ± 0.6, P < 0.03). The incidence of venous leg ulcers, incidence of surgical intervention to treat symptoms related to CVI and exercise capacity were not assessed or reported in either of the included trials. We rated both included studies as at high risk of bias; hence, these data should be interpreted carefully. Due to the small number of studies and small sample size, we were not able to verify indirectness and publication bias. Therefore, we judged the overall quality of evidence as very low according to the GRADE approach. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence available to assess the efficacy of physical exercise in people with CVI. Future research into the effect of physical exercise should consider types of exercise protocols (intensity, frequency and time), sample size, blinding and homogeneity according to the severity of disease.

Breathing exercises for adults with asthma.

BACKGROUND: Breathing exercises have been widely used worldwide as a complementary therapy to the pharmacological treatment of people with asthma. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the evidence for the efficacy of breathing exercises in the management of patients with asthma. SEARCH METHODS: The search for trials led review authors to review the literature available in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and AMED and to perform handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. Trial registers and reference lists of included articles were also consulted.The literature search has been updated to January 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of breathing exercises in adults with asthma compared with a control group receiving asthma education or, alternatively, with no active control group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. RevMan software was used for data analysis based on the fixed-effect model. Continuous outcomes were expressed as mean differences (MDs) with confidence intervals (CIs) of 95%. Heterogeneity was assessed by inspecting the forest plots. The Chi(2) test was applied, with a P value of 0.10 indicating statistical significance. The I(2) statistic was implemented, with a value greater than 50% representing a substantial level of heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 13 studies involving 906 participants are included in the review. The trials were different from one another in terms of type of breathing exercise performed, number of participants enrolled, number and duration of sessions completed, outcomes reported and statistical presentation of data. Asthma severity in participants from the included studies ranged from mild to moderate, and the samples consisted solely of outpatients. The following outcomes were measured: quality of life, asthma symptoms, number of acute exacerbations and lung function. Eleven studies compared breathing exercise with inactive control, and two with asthma education control groups. All eight studies that assessed quality of life reported an improvement in this outcome. An improvement in the number of acute exacerbations was observed by the only study that assessed this outcome. Six of seven included studies showed significant differences favouring breathing exercises for asthma symptoms. Effects on lung function were more variable, with no difference reported in five of the eleven studies that assessed this outcome, while the other six showed a significant difference for this outcome, which favoured breathing exercises. As a result of substantial heterogeneity among the studies, meta-analysis was possible only for asthma symptoms and changes in the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ). Each meta-analysis included only two studies and showed a significant difference favouring breathing exercises (MD -3.22, 95% CI -6.31 to -0.13 for asthma symptoms; MD 0.79, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.08 for change in AQLQ). Assessment of risk of bias was impaired by incomplete reporting of methodological aspects of most of the included trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Even though individual trials reported positive effects of breathing exercises, no reliable conclusions could be drawn concerning the use of breathing exercises for asthma in clinical practice. This was a result of methodological differences among the included studies and poor reporting of methodological aspects in most of the included studies. However, trends for improvement are encouraging, and further studies including full descriptions of treatment methods and outcome measurements are required.

Comparison between a national and a foreign manovacuometer for nasal inspiratory pressure measurement.

BACKGROUND: the measurement of nasal inspiratory pressure, known as the sniff test, was developed as a new test of inspiratory muscle strength, mainly used in neuromuscular conditions. The test is easy to be performed and noninvasive. Despite the clinical importance of assessment of nasal inspiratory pressure a national equipment is not available to assess it. OBJECTIVES: to compare a national with a foreign manovacuometer in assessing the nasal inspiratory pressure (sniff test) in healthy subjects. METHODS: 18 subjects were evaluated (age 21.44 ± 2.8 years, BMI 23.4 ± 2.5 kg/m² , FVC 102.1 ±1 0.3% pred, FEV1 98.4 ± 1% pred). We performed two measures of nasal inspiratory pressure using two different manovacuometer: a national and a foreign. All subjects performed the tests at the same time of day, in different days being the order of the testes established randomly. It was used the paired t test, Pearson correlation and the Bland-Altman plots for statistical analysis considering a 5% significance level. RESULTS: The averages observed for the two measures of nasal pressures were 125 ± 42.4 cmH2O for the foreign equipment, and 131.7 ± 2 8.7 cmH2O for the national equipment. The Pearson correlation showed significant correlation between the means with a coefficient of r=0.63. The t test showed no significant differences between both measurements (p>0,05). The BIAS ± SD found in Bland-Altman plot analysis was 7 cmH2O with limits of agreement between -57.5 cmH2O and 71.5 cmH2O. CONCLUSION: the results suggest that the national electronic device is feasible and safe to the sniff test measurement in healthy subjects.

Comparação entre o manovacuômetro nacional e o importado para medida da pressão inspiratória nasal / Comparison between a national and a foreign manovacuometer for nasal inspiratory pressure measurement

CONTEXTUALIZAÇÃO: A medida da pressão inspiratória nasal, conhecida como sniff teste, desenvolvida como um novo teste de força muscular inspiratória, utilizada principalmente em doenças neuromusculares, é de fácil realização e não invasiva. Apesar da importância clínica da avaliação da pressão inspiratória nasal, não existe um instrumento nacional disponível para realizá-la. OBJETIVOS: Comparar os manovacuômetros eletrônicos nacional e importado para a avaliação da pressão inspiratória nasal em pessoas saudáveis. MÉTODOS: Foram avaliados 18 voluntários saudáveis (idade 21,4±2,8 anos, IMC 23,4±2,5 Kg/m² , CVF 102,1±10,3 por centopred, VEF1 98,4±1 por centopred) por meio de duas medidas de pressão inspiratória nasal em dois equipamentos diferentes: um nacional e outro importado. Todos os sujeitos realizaram a manobra no mesmo horário do dia, em dias ocasionais, sendo a ordem determinada aleatoriamente. Para análise estatística, foi utilizado o teste t pareado, a correlação de Pearson e o Bland-Altman com nível de significância de 5 por cento. RESULTADOS: As médias encontradas durante as duas medidas das pressões nasais foram de 125±42,4 cmH2O para o aparelho importado e de 131,7±28,7 cmH2O para o nacional. A análise de Pearson demonstrou uma correlação significativa entre as médias, com um coeficiente r=0,63. Os valores médios não apresentaram diferenças significativas pelo teste t pareado (p>0,05). Na análise de Bland-Altman, encontrou-se um BIAS igual a 7 cm H2O, desvio-padrão de 32,9 cmH2O para o DP e um intervalo de confiança de -57,5 cmH2O até 71,5 cmH2O. CONCLUSÃO: Os resultados encontrados sugerem que o manovacuômetro eletrônico nacional é viável e seguro para realização do sniff teste em sujeitos saudáveis.

BACKGROUND: The measurement of nasal inspiratory pressure, known as the sniff test, was developed as a new test of inspiratory muscle strength, mainly used in neuromuscular conditions. The test is easy to be performed and noninvasive. Despite the clinical importance of assessment of nasal inspiratory pressure a national equipment is not available to assess it. OBJECTIVES: To compare a national with a foreign manovacuometer in assessing the nasal inspiratory pressure (sniff test) in healthy subjects. METHODS: 18 subjects were evaluated (age 21.44±2.8 years, BMI 23.4±2.5 kg/m² , FVC 102.1±10.3 percent pred, FEV1 98.4±1 percent pred). We performed two measures of nasal inspiratory pressure using two different manovacuometer: a national and a foreign. All subjects performed the tests at the same time of day, in different days being the order of the testes established randomly. It was used the paired t test, Pearson correlation and the Bland-Altman plots for statistical analysis considering a 5 percent significance level. RESULTS: The averages observed for the two measures of nasal pressures were 125±42.4 cmH2O for the foreign equipment, and 131.7±28.7 cmH2O for the national equipment. The Pearson correlation showed significant correlation between the means with a coefficient of r=0.63. The t test showed no significant differences between both measurements (p>0,05). The BIAS±SD found in Bland-Altman plot analysis was 7 cmH2O with limits of agreement between -57.5 cmH2O and 71.5 cmH2O. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the national electronic device is feasible and safe to the sniff test measurement in healthy subjects.