MCHaaglanden

Leidschendam, Netherlands

MCHaaglanden

Leidschendam, Netherlands
SEARCH FILTERS
Time filter
Source Type

Bulder B.A.G.,SMA Rotterdam | Moen M.H.,UMC Utrecht | Weir A.,MCHaaglanden | Bakker E.W.P.,Academisch Medisch Centrum | Tol J.L.,MCHaaglanden
Sport en Geneeskunde | Year: 2011

Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare the maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) and heart rate at anaerobic threshold (HR AT) between a soccer specific field test and a treadmill test. Materials and methods: in randomized order design, 9 soccer players underwent a soccer specific field test and a treadmill test. Stationary and mobile ergospirometric devices were used. VO2max, HRAT, maximal heart rate (HRmax) and the maximum ventilation (VEmax) were measured. Results: 8 complete data sets were available for analysis. The VO 2max was not significantly different between the field test (62.8 ± 6.8 ml/kg/min) and the treadmill test (61.6 ± 4.6 ml/kg/ min); p=0.5 and coefficient of variation (COV) 4.9%. No significant difference was found for the HRAT (172.2 ± 12.1 and 172.2 ± 8.8 BPM, respectively) with p=1.0 and COV 3.7%, HRmax (p=0.7, COV 2.9%) and V Emax (p=0.4, COV 7.5%). Conclusion: The soccer specific field test results are not different to those of a treadmill test.


Nooij L.S.,MCHaaglanden | Visser S.,VUMC | Meuleman T.,MCHaaglanden | Vos P.,MCHaaglanden | And 2 more authors.
Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology | Year: 2014

Objective: Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy remain a major cause of maternal morbidity and mortality. Blood pressure control is essential for maternal and neonatal outcome. Therefore, we analyzed the potency and side effects of two treatment options (nicardipine compared to labetalol) in order to gain insight in improved treatment of severe hypertension during pregnancy and to evaluate the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial. Study design: A nested case control study in an inner city teaching hospital alongside a meta-analysis. Data from women who received nicardipine were compared with patients who received labetalol during pregnancy. Primary outcome measure was successful control of severe hypertension. Secondary outcome measures were maternal and neonatal side effects. These results were included in a meta-analysis. Results: Only one previous study described nicardipine in comparison to labetalol during pregnancy. The combined results indicate a similar success-rate of treatment with nicardipine compared to labetalol during pregnancy. Women treated with nicardipine had more often tachycardia, headache and nausea compared to women treated with labetalol. Hypotension resulting in fetal distress was found more often in the labetalol group. Conclusion: Nicardipine is a potent drug to control hypertension during pregnancy with side effects including maternal headaches, nausea and tachycardia. Labetalol had more neonatal side effects including hypotension compared with nicardipine. These results support the justification and prove that it is safe to perform a randomized controlled trial comparing nicardipine to labetalol in the treatment of severe hypertension in pregnancy. © 2014 Bentham Science Publishers.

Loading MCHaaglanden collaborators
Loading MCHaaglanden collaborators