Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Clinical Trials Examining the Benefit of Exercise Programmes Using Nordic Walking in Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease

• Published in: European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery 2018-10, Vol.56 (4), p.534-543
• Main Authors: Golledge, Jonathan, Maarij, Khyber, Moxon, Joseph V., Beard, Jonathan D., Girold, Sebastien, Wrang, Hans, Morris, Dylan R.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Clinical Trials as Topic; Exercise; Exercise - physiology; Exercise Therapy - methods; Humans; Intermittent claudication; Intermittent Claudication - therapy; Nordic walking; Peripheral Arterial Disease - therapy; Time Factors; Walk Test; Walking
• ISSN: 1078-5884; 1532-2165
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2018.05.026

An exercise programme is part of the initial management of peripheral artery disease (PAD). Nordic walking uses poles and a core-focused walking technique to reduce the load on the legs, which may have advantages as an exercise programme for PAD. This systematic review examined the benefit of a Nordic walking programme for treating PAD compared with other programmes. A systematic approach was used to identify clinical trials comparing Nordic walking and control programmes in PAD patients. For inclusion, studies had to report maximum walking distance (MWD) measured with a treadmill test or corridor walking test both at entry and follow up. Study quality was appraised using the Cochrane collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias. An inverse variance weighted meta-analysis was performed to compare improvements in MWD. Five independent trials involving 294 patients were identified. In three trials, supervised Nordic walking programmes were compared with supervised standard walking. One trial compared a home based Nordic walking programme with a similar standard walking programme. One trial compared a partly supervised Nordic walking programme with best medical management. Meta-analysis of all data suggested that MWD improvements were similar for patients treated by Nordic and standard walking programmes (standardised mean difference, SMD = 1.31, 95% CI –1.28 to 3.91; p = .322). Findings for completely supervised programmes were similar to the primary analysis (SMD = −0.79, 95% CI –2.81 to 1.24; p = .446) while those from partially supervised or home based programmes favoured Nordic walking (SMD = 4.46, 95% CI 3.39, 5.53; p