A Randomized, Controlled Two-Center Pilot Trial of a 6-Month Exercise Training Program to Treat the Post-Thrombotic Syndrome: The EXPO Pilot Trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Abstract 3984 Poster Board III-920 Background Exercise training is an effective treatment for lower limb arterial claudication and may also have the potential to improve the post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS). Objectives We conducted a randomized, allocation concealed, controlled, assessor-blinded multicenter pilot trial to provide preliminary data on the effectiveness of a 6-month exercise training program in improving the PTS. Methods Patients aged 18-75 years with unilateral DVT diagnosed >6 months previously and ipsilateral PTS (Villalta criteria) were screened for participation in the trial at 2 centres in Canada (Montreal & Ottawa). Eligible, consenting patients were randomized to Active Training (AT), a 26-week trainer-supervised program consisting of leg strengthening, leg stretching and aerobic exercise, or Attention Control (AC), a 1-hour presentation on PTS + monthly phone follow-ups. Participants had study visits at Baseline (T0), 3 mths (T3) and 6 mths (T6) to measure generic (SF-36) and venous disease-specific (VEINES-QOL) quality of life (QOL), PTS severity (Villalta scale), leg strength (number of heel lifts) and leg flexibility (stretch angle, in degrees, for quadriceps, hamstring, gastrocnemius and soleus muscles). Within-subject changes from T0 to T6 were compared in AT vs. AC using repeated measures two-way ANOVA. Results From 2007-2008, 43 patients were recruited (21 randomized to AT, 22 to AC). Mean age was 47 years, 44% were male, and 49% had moderate or severe PTS. At 3 and 6 mths, PTS severity category improved in 65% of AT vs. 26% of AC (p=0.02) and 61% of AT vs. 46% of AC (p=ns), respectively. Other results are shown in Table (for all outcomes except Villalta score, + change signifies improvement from T0 to T6). Conclusion In our pilot trial, exercise training improved PTS severity, QOL, leg strength and leg flexibility in patients with PTS. Exercise training appears to be a promising modality to treat PTS, and a large, adequately powered trial is warranted. Funded by Canadian Institutes of Health Research Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".