Cargando…

Evaluating Exercise Progression in an Australian Cardiac Rehabilitation Program: Should Cardiac Intervention, Age, or Physical Capacity Be Considered?

Progression of prescribed exercise is important to facilitate attainment of optimal physical capacity during cardiac rehabilitation. However, it is not clear how often exercise is progressed or to what extent. This study evaluated whether exercise progression during clinical cardiac rehabilitation w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Price, Kym Joanne, Gordon, Brett Ashley, Bird, Stephen Richard, Benson, Amanda Clare
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8197818/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34071598
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115826
_version_ 1783706992400924672
author Price, Kym Joanne
Gordon, Brett Ashley
Bird, Stephen Richard
Benson, Amanda Clare
author_facet Price, Kym Joanne
Gordon, Brett Ashley
Bird, Stephen Richard
Benson, Amanda Clare
author_sort Price, Kym Joanne
collection PubMed
description Progression of prescribed exercise is important to facilitate attainment of optimal physical capacity during cardiac rehabilitation. However, it is not clear how often exercise is progressed or to what extent. This study evaluated whether exercise progression during clinical cardiac rehabilitation was different between cardiovascular treatment, age, or initial physical capacity. The prescribed exercise of sixty patients who completed 12 sessions of outpatient cardiac rehabilitation at a major Australian metropolitan hospital was evaluated. The prescribed aerobic exercise dose was progressed using intensity rather than duration, while repetitions and weight lifted were utilised to progress resistance training dose. Cardiovascular treatment or age did not influence exercise progression, while initial physical capacity and strength did. Aerobic exercise intensity relative to initial physical capacity was progressed from the first session to the last session for those with high (from mean (95%CI) 44.6% (42.2–47.0) to 68.3% (63.5–73.1); p < 0.001) and moderate physical capacity at admission (from 53.0% (50.7–55.3) to 76.3% (71.2–81.4); p < 0.001), but not in those with low physical capacity (from 67.3% (63.7–70.9) to 85.0% (73.7–96.2); p = 0.336). The initial prescription for those with low physical capacity was proportionately higher than for those with high capacity (p < 0.001). Exercise testing should be recommended in guidelines to facilitate appropriate exercise prescription and progression.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8197818
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81978182021-06-14 Evaluating Exercise Progression in an Australian Cardiac Rehabilitation Program: Should Cardiac Intervention, Age, or Physical Capacity Be Considered? Price, Kym Joanne Gordon, Brett Ashley Bird, Stephen Richard Benson, Amanda Clare Int J Environ Res Public Health Article Progression of prescribed exercise is important to facilitate attainment of optimal physical capacity during cardiac rehabilitation. However, it is not clear how often exercise is progressed or to what extent. This study evaluated whether exercise progression during clinical cardiac rehabilitation was different between cardiovascular treatment, age, or initial physical capacity. The prescribed exercise of sixty patients who completed 12 sessions of outpatient cardiac rehabilitation at a major Australian metropolitan hospital was evaluated. The prescribed aerobic exercise dose was progressed using intensity rather than duration, while repetitions and weight lifted were utilised to progress resistance training dose. Cardiovascular treatment or age did not influence exercise progression, while initial physical capacity and strength did. Aerobic exercise intensity relative to initial physical capacity was progressed from the first session to the last session for those with high (from mean (95%CI) 44.6% (42.2–47.0) to 68.3% (63.5–73.1); p < 0.001) and moderate physical capacity at admission (from 53.0% (50.7–55.3) to 76.3% (71.2–81.4); p < 0.001), but not in those with low physical capacity (from 67.3% (63.7–70.9) to 85.0% (73.7–96.2); p = 0.336). The initial prescription for those with low physical capacity was proportionately higher than for those with high capacity (p < 0.001). Exercise testing should be recommended in guidelines to facilitate appropriate exercise prescription and progression. MDPI 2021-05-28 /pmc/articles/PMC8197818/ /pubmed/34071598 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115826 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Price, Kym Joanne
Gordon, Brett Ashley
Bird, Stephen Richard
Benson, Amanda Clare
Evaluating Exercise Progression in an Australian Cardiac Rehabilitation Program: Should Cardiac Intervention, Age, or Physical Capacity Be Considered?
title Evaluating Exercise Progression in an Australian Cardiac Rehabilitation Program: Should Cardiac Intervention, Age, or Physical Capacity Be Considered?
title_full Evaluating Exercise Progression in an Australian Cardiac Rehabilitation Program: Should Cardiac Intervention, Age, or Physical Capacity Be Considered?
title_fullStr Evaluating Exercise Progression in an Australian Cardiac Rehabilitation Program: Should Cardiac Intervention, Age, or Physical Capacity Be Considered?
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating Exercise Progression in an Australian Cardiac Rehabilitation Program: Should Cardiac Intervention, Age, or Physical Capacity Be Considered?
title_short Evaluating Exercise Progression in an Australian Cardiac Rehabilitation Program: Should Cardiac Intervention, Age, or Physical Capacity Be Considered?
title_sort evaluating exercise progression in an australian cardiac rehabilitation program: should cardiac intervention, age, or physical capacity be considered?
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8197818/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34071598
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115826
work_keys_str_mv AT pricekymjoanne evaluatingexerciseprogressioninanaustraliancardiacrehabilitationprogramshouldcardiacinterventionageorphysicalcapacitybeconsidered
AT gordonbrettashley evaluatingexerciseprogressioninanaustraliancardiacrehabilitationprogramshouldcardiacinterventionageorphysicalcapacitybeconsidered
AT birdstephenrichard evaluatingexerciseprogressioninanaustraliancardiacrehabilitationprogramshouldcardiacinterventionageorphysicalcapacitybeconsidered
AT bensonamandaclare evaluatingexerciseprogressioninanaustraliancardiacrehabilitationprogramshouldcardiacinterventionageorphysicalcapacitybeconsidered