Aquatic Training in Upright Position as an Alternative to Improve Blood Pressure in Adults and Elderly: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Meta-analyses have shown that land training (LT) reduces blood pressure; however, it is not known whether aquatic training (AT) promotes this same effect.
The aim was to conduct a meta-analysis on the effects of AT on systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in adults and elderly and compare them to those of LT and no training [control group (CG)].
Embase, PubMed, Cochrane and Scopus were searched up to May 2017.
Study Eligibility Criteria
Studies that evaluated the effect of upright AT (i.e., AT performed in upright position) on the blood pressure of adult individuals and the elderly who did not present with cardiovascular disease (other than hypertension) were included.
Two independent reviewers screened search results, performed data extraction and assessed risk of bias. Random effect was used, and the effect size (ES) was calculated by using the standardized mean difference with a 95% confidence interval.
AT promoted a reduction in SBP (ES − 1.47; 95% CI − 2.23 to − 0.70; p < 0.01) compared to CG. This effect is maintained with training progression (ES − 1.52; 95% CI − 2.70 to − 0.33; p = 0.01) and no progression (ES − 1.43; 95% CI − 2.64 to − 0.23; p = 0.02). These effects were significant only in hypertensive (ES − 2.20; 95% CI − 2.72 to − 1.68; p < 0.01), and not in pre-hypertensive individuals. AT promoted a decrease in DBP (− 0.92; 95% CI − 1.27 to − 0.57; p < 0.01) after training with progression (− 0.81; 95% CI − 1.62 to − 0.001; p = 0.04) and no progression (− 1.01; 95% CI − 1.40 to − 0.62; p < 0.01) in pre-hypertensive (− 1.12; 95% CI − 1.53 to − 0.70; p < 0.01) and hypertensive patients (− 0.69; 95% CI − 1.31 to − 0.06; p = 0.03). AT promoted similar reductions in SBP compared to LT; however, reduction of DBP in hypertensive patients was lower (1.82; 95% CI 0.84 to 2.79; p < 0.01).
AT promotes blood pressure reduction in adults and elderly. The reduction in SBP in those performing AT is similar to those performing LT, but reduction of DBP is lower in the AT group compared to that in the LT group.
Systematic Review Registration Number
Compliance with Ethical Standards
No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article.
Conflict of interest
Thaís Reichert, Rochelle Rocha Costa, Bruna Machado Barroso, Vitória de Mello Bones da Rocha, Rodrigo Sudatti Delevatti and Luiz Fernando Martins Kruel declare that they have no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this review.
- 7.Calhoun DA, Jones D, Textor S, Goff DC, Murphy TP, Toto RD, et al. Resistant hypertension: diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment. A scientific statement from the American Heart Association Professional Education Committee of the Council for High Blood Pressure Research. Hypertension. 2008;51:1403–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Cornelissen VA, Smart NA. Exercise training for blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2013;2:e004473.Google Scholar
- 25.Nuttamonwarakul A, Amatyakul S, Suksom D. Twelve weeks of aqua-aerobic exercise improve physiological adaptations and glycemic control in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes. J Exerc Physiol Online. 2012;2:64–70.Google Scholar
- 31.Kaddissy G, Lattouf N. Daily integration of the regular aquatic rhythmic activity in women’s life during menopause and its role in the prevention of the metabolic syndrome. Kinesither Rev. 2011;118:48–53.Google Scholar
- 32.Kamalakkannan K, Suresh KM. Effect of land and shallow water aerobic exercises on selected physiological and biochemical variables of obese adult. J Phys Educ Sport. 2014;14:532–6.Google Scholar
- 35.Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.1. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org.
- 39.Katz J, Wilson BRA. The effects of a six-week, low-intensity nautilus circuit training program on resting blood pressure in females. J Sports Med Phys Fit. 1992;32:299–302.Google Scholar