Table 4.
Differencesa in frailty, dialysis adequacy, and QoL according to the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses
| Variable | Intention-to-treat analysis (n = 42) |
Per-protocol analysis (n = 39) |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exercise group (n = 21) | Control group (n = 21) | zb | p-value | Exercise group (n = 18) | Control group (n = 21) | zb | p-value | |
| Frailty score | –1.26 ± 0.96 | 0.57 ± 0.81 | –5.08 | <0.001 | –1.28 ± 1.02 | 0.57 ± 0.81 | –4.84 | <0.001 |
| Slowness (gait speed, m/sec) | 0.27 ± 0.22 | –0.11 ± 0.15 | –4.77 | <0.001 | 0.31 ± 0.19 | –0.11 ± 0.15 | –5.21 | <0.001 |
| Weakness (grip strength, kg) | 1.58 ± 3.94 | –4.02 ± 4.52 | –4.03 | <0.001 | 2.03 ± 3.79 | –4.02 ± 4.52 | –4.05 | <0.001 |
| Exhaustion (vitality, score) | 4.57 ± 7.74 | –2.98 ± 9.91 | –2.30 | 0.02 | 5.36 ± 8.09 | –2.98 ±9.91 | –2.42 | 0.02 |
| Weight loss (BMI, kg/m2) | 0.18 ± 1.20 | 0.48 ± 1.79 | –0.57 | 0.57 | 0.03 ± 1.07 | 0.48 ± 1.79 | 0.42 | 0.69 |
| SPPB (0–12, score) | 0.88 ± 1.43 | –0.33 ± 1.68 | –2.06 | 0.04 | 1.17 ± 1.29 | –0.33 ± 1.68 | –2.67 | 0.01 |
| Dialysis adequacy (Kt/V urea) | 0.13 ± 0.22 | –0.03 ± 0.13 | –2.48 | 0.01 | 0.12 ± 0.21 | –0.03 ± 0.13 | –2.48 | 0.01 |
| QoL | ||||||||
| PCS | 5.69 ± 5.58 | –1.72 ± 9.04 | –2.79 | 0.005 | 6.29 ± 5.62 | –1.72 ± 9.04 | –2.86 | 0.003 |
| MCS | 2.49 ± 7.28 | –0.86 ± 9.41 | –1.59 | 0.11 | 2.88 ± 7.79 | –0.86 ± 9.41 | –1.54 | 0.13 |
Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation.
BMI, body mass index; Kt/V, K = dialyzer’s capacity to clear urea at the blood flow rate, t = treatment time, V = distribution volume of urea; SPPB, short physical performance battery; MCS, mental component summary; PCS, physical component summary; QoL, quality of life.
a
Value at the 12th week – value at baseline.
b
z-score calculated using the Mann-Whitney U test.