Intradialytic exercise with blood flow restriction: Something to add to hemodialysis adequacy? Findings from a crossover study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Hemodialysis (HD) increases the lifespan of chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. However, HD is only partially effective in replacing renal function. The aim of this study is to compare HD adequacy between sessions with intradialytic exercise with or without blood flow restriction (BFR) with sessions without exercise. METHODS: A crossover study including 22 adult CKD patients on HD. The patients were assigned to BFR (n = 11) or exercise alone group (n = 11). Each patient was submitted to four HD sessions (two with exercise and two control sessions). HD adequacy was assessed by equilibrated Kt/V-urea (eKT/V), single-pool Kt/V-urea (sp-Kt/V), urea and phosphorus rebound, urea reduction ratio (URR) and removal of urea and phosphorus in dialysate. FINDINGS: BFR exercise improved eKt/V and sp-Kt/V (1.32 ± 0.21 vs. 1.10 ± 0.16 for control, P < 0.001; 1.53 ± 0.26 vs. 1.27 ± 0.19 for control, P < 0.001, respectively) and URR (72.5 ± 5.4% vs. 66.1 ± 7.7% for control, P < 0.001). No difference in eKt/V, sp-Kt/V or URR could be detected between exercise alone and control HD sessions. Urea rebound was lower in BFR exercise vs. control sessions (-8.9 ± 9.1% vs. 30.7 ± 12.8%, P < 0.01) and exercise alone vs. control sessions (13.3 ± 29.0% vs. 42.4 ± 15.3%, P < 0.01). Phosphorus rebound was marginally lower in exercise vs. control sessions (14.4 ± 19.1% vs. 28.4 ± 22.1%, P = 0.18). Urea and phosphorus mass removal in dialysate were marginally higher in exercise vs. control sessions (42.2 ± 19.4 g vs. 35.7 ± 12.5 g, P = 0.24; 912.1 ± 360.9 mg vs. 778.6 ± 245.1 mg, P = 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: Intradialytic exercise with BFR was more effective than standard exercise in increasing HD adequacy.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".