Low‐Load Resistance Training With Blood‐Flow Restriction in Relation to Muscle Function, Mass, and Functionality in Women With Rheumatoid Arthritis. Issue 6 (14th May 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rodrigues, Reynaldo; Ferraz, Rodrigo B.; Kurimori, Ceci O.; Guedes, Lissiane K.; Lima, Fernanda R.; de Sá‐Pinto, Ana L.; Gualano, Bruno; Roschel, Hamilton
• Is Part Of: Arthritis care & research. Volume 72:Issue 6(2020)
• Page Start: 787
• Page End: 797
• Publication Date: 2020-05-14
• Subjects: Arthritis -- Periodicals; Rheumatism -- Periodicals; 616.72
• DOI: 10.1002/acr.23911
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2151-464X

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: To evaluate the effects of a low‐load resistance training program associated with partial blood‐flow restriction in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: Forty‐eight women with RA were randomized into 1 of 3 groups: high‐load resistance training (HL‐RT; 70% 1 repetition maximum [1RM]), low‐load resistance training (30% 1RM) with partial blood‐flow restriction training (BFRT), and a control group. Patients completed a 12‐week supervised training program and were assessed for lower‐extremity 1RM, quadriceps cross‐sectional area (CSA), physical function (timed‐stands test [TST], timed‐up‐and‐go test [TUG], and Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ]), and quality of life (Short Form 36 health survey [SF‐36]) at baseline and after the intervention. Results: BFRT and HL‐RT were similarly effective in increasing maximum dynamic strength in both leg press (22.8% and 24.2%, respectively; P < 0.0001 for all) and knee extension (19.7% and 23.8%, respectively; P < 0.0001 for all). Quadriceps CSA was also significantly increased in both BFRT and HL‐RT (9.5% and 10.8%, respectively; P < 0.0001 for all). Comparable improvements in TST (11.2% and 14.7%; P < 0.0001 for all) and TUG (–6.8% [ P < 0.0053] and –8.7% [ P < 0.0001]) were also observed in BFRT and HL‐RT, respectively. Improvements in both groups were significantly greater than those of the control group ( P < 0.05 for all). SF‐36 role physical and bodily pain and HAQ scores were improved only in BFRT (45.7%, 22.5%, and –55.9%, respectively; P < 0.05 for all). HL‐RT resulted in 1 case of withdrawal and several cases of exercise‐induced pain, which did not occur in BFRT. Conclusion: BFRT was effective in improving muscle strength, mass, function, and health‐related quality of life in patients with RA, emerging as a viable therapeutic modality in RA management.