Hansford Harrison J, Parmenter Belinda J, McLeod Kelly A, Wewege Michael A, Smart Neil A, Schutte Aletta E, Jones Matthew D
Department of Exercise Physiology, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Centre for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Hypertens Res. 2021 Nov;44(11):1373-1384. doi: 10.1038/s41440-021-00720-3. Epub 2021 Aug 12.
High blood pressure (BP) is a global health challenge. Isometric resistance training (IRT) has demonstrated antihypertensive effects, but safety data are not available, thereby limiting its recommendation for clinical use. We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing IRT to controls in adults with elevated BP (systolic ≥130 mmHg/diastolic ≥85 mmHg). This review provides an update to office BP estimations and is the first to investigate 24-h ambulatory BP, central BP, and safety. Data were analyzed using a random-effects meta-analysis. We assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the quality of evidence with GRADE. Twenty-four trials were included (n = 1143; age = 56 ± 9 years, 56% female). IRT resulted in clinically meaningful reductions in office systolic (-6.97 mmHg, 95% CI -8.77 to -5.18, p < 0.0001) and office diastolic BP (-3.86 mmHg, 95% CI -5.31 to -2.41, p < 0.0001). Novel findings included reductions in central systolic (-7.48 mmHg, 95% CI -14.89 to -0.07, p = 0.035), central diastolic (-3.75 mmHg, 95% CI -6.38 to -1.12, p = 0.005), and 24-h diastolic (-2.39 mmHg, 95% CI -4.28 to -0.40, p = 0.02) but not 24-h systolic BP (-2.77 mmHg, 95% CI -6.80 to 1.25, p = 0.18). These results are very low/low certainty with high heterogeneity. There was no significant increase in the risk of IRT, risk ratio (1.12, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.68, p = 0.8), or the risk difference (1.02, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.03, p = 0.13). This means that there is one adverse event per 38,444 bouts of IRT. IRT appears safe and may cause clinically relevant reductions in BP (office, central BP, and 24-h diastolic). High-quality trials are required to improve confidence in these findings. PROSPERO (CRD42020201888); OSF ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/H58BZ ).
高血压是一项全球性的健康挑战。等长抗阻训练(IRT)已显示出降压效果,但尚无安全性数据,因此限制了其在临床应用中的推荐。我们对比较IRT与血压升高(收缩压≥130mmHg/舒张压≥85mmHg)的成年人对照组的随机对照试验进行了系统评价。本评价更新了诊室血压估计值,并且首次研究了24小时动态血压、中心血压和安全性。使用随机效应荟萃分析对数据进行分析。我们使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险,并使用GRADE评估证据质量。纳入了24项试验(n = 1143;年龄= 56±9岁,56%为女性)。IRT导致诊室收缩压出现具有临床意义的降低(-6.97mmHg,95%CI -8.77至-5.18,p < 0.0001)和诊室舒张压降低(-3.86mmHg,95%CI -5.31至-2.41,p < 0.0001)。新发现包括中心收缩压降低(-7.48mmHg,95%CI -14.89至-0.07,p = 0.035)、中心舒张压降低(-3.75mmHg,95%CI -6.38至-1.12,p = 0.005)以及24小时舒张压降低(-2.39mmHg,95%CI -4.28至-0.40,p = 0.02),但24小时收缩压未降低(-2.77mmHg,95%CI -6.80至1.25,p = 0.18)。这些结果具有非常低/低的确定性且异质性高。IRT的风险、风险比(1.12,95%CI 0.47至2.68,p = 0.8)或风险差异(1.02,95%CI 1.00至1.03,p = 0.13)均无显著增加。这意味着每38444次IRT训练中有1次不良事件。IRT似乎是安全的,并且可能导致临床上相关的血压降低(诊室血压、中心血压和24小时舒张压)。需要高质量的试验来提高对这些结果的信心。国际前瞻性系统评价注册库(CRD42020201888);开放科学框架(https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/H58BZ)