Cargando…

Is the Training Intensity in Phase Two Cardiovascular Rehabilitation Different in Telehealth versus Outpatient Rehabilitation?

Telehealth cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a feasible and effective alternative to conventional outpatient CR. Present evidence is limited on the comparison of exercise intensity adherence in telehealth and outpatient CR. The purpose of the study was to evaluate and compare training intensity adheren...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Batalik, Ladislav, Pepera, Garyfallia, Papathanasiou, Jannis, Rutkowski, Sebastian, Líška, David, Batalikova, Katerina, Hartman, Martin, Felšőci, Marián, Dosbaba, Filip
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8466823/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34575185
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10184069
_version_ 1784573238374825984
author Batalik, Ladislav
Pepera, Garyfallia
Papathanasiou, Jannis
Rutkowski, Sebastian
Líška, David
Batalikova, Katerina
Hartman, Martin
Felšőci, Marián
Dosbaba, Filip
author_facet Batalik, Ladislav
Pepera, Garyfallia
Papathanasiou, Jannis
Rutkowski, Sebastian
Líška, David
Batalikova, Katerina
Hartman, Martin
Felšőci, Marián
Dosbaba, Filip
author_sort Batalik, Ladislav
collection PubMed
description Telehealth cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a feasible and effective alternative to conventional outpatient CR. Present evidence is limited on the comparison of exercise intensity adherence in telehealth and outpatient CR. The purpose of the study was to evaluate and compare training intensity adherence through 12-week phase II CR in telehealth and outpatient CR. A sample of 56 patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) with a mean age of 56.7 ± 7.1 entering comprehensive secondary prevention phase II was randomized into telehealth CR (n = 28) and control outpatient CR (n = 28) groups. The primary outcome was a comparison of training intensity adherence in both CR models and heart rate (HR) response from individual CR sessions, expressed by the HR reserve percentage. As a result, the parameter HR reserve percentage as the total average of the training intensity during the telehealth intervention and the outpatient CR did not differ statistically (p = 0.63). There was no death case, and all severe adverse cases required medical admission throughout an exercise training session in study subjects in both groups. This research evidence demonstrated that the telehealth CR model is similar in training intensities to the conventional outpatient CR in CAD patients with low to moderate cardiovascular risk.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8466823
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84668232021-09-27 Is the Training Intensity in Phase Two Cardiovascular Rehabilitation Different in Telehealth versus Outpatient Rehabilitation? Batalik, Ladislav Pepera, Garyfallia Papathanasiou, Jannis Rutkowski, Sebastian Líška, David Batalikova, Katerina Hartman, Martin Felšőci, Marián Dosbaba, Filip J Clin Med Article Telehealth cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a feasible and effective alternative to conventional outpatient CR. Present evidence is limited on the comparison of exercise intensity adherence in telehealth and outpatient CR. The purpose of the study was to evaluate and compare training intensity adherence through 12-week phase II CR in telehealth and outpatient CR. A sample of 56 patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) with a mean age of 56.7 ± 7.1 entering comprehensive secondary prevention phase II was randomized into telehealth CR (n = 28) and control outpatient CR (n = 28) groups. The primary outcome was a comparison of training intensity adherence in both CR models and heart rate (HR) response from individual CR sessions, expressed by the HR reserve percentage. As a result, the parameter HR reserve percentage as the total average of the training intensity during the telehealth intervention and the outpatient CR did not differ statistically (p = 0.63). There was no death case, and all severe adverse cases required medical admission throughout an exercise training session in study subjects in both groups. This research evidence demonstrated that the telehealth CR model is similar in training intensities to the conventional outpatient CR in CAD patients with low to moderate cardiovascular risk. MDPI 2021-09-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8466823/ /pubmed/34575185 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10184069 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
Batalik, Ladislav
Pepera, Garyfallia
Papathanasiou, Jannis
Rutkowski, Sebastian
Líška, David
Batalikova, Katerina
Hartman, Martin
Felšőci, Marián
Dosbaba, Filip
Is the Training Intensity in Phase Two Cardiovascular Rehabilitation Different in Telehealth versus Outpatient Rehabilitation?
title Is the Training Intensity in Phase Two Cardiovascular Rehabilitation Different in Telehealth versus Outpatient Rehabilitation?
title_full Is the Training Intensity in Phase Two Cardiovascular Rehabilitation Different in Telehealth versus Outpatient Rehabilitation?
title_fullStr Is the Training Intensity in Phase Two Cardiovascular Rehabilitation Different in Telehealth versus Outpatient Rehabilitation?
title_full_unstemmed Is the Training Intensity in Phase Two Cardiovascular Rehabilitation Different in Telehealth versus Outpatient Rehabilitation?
title_short Is the Training Intensity in Phase Two Cardiovascular Rehabilitation Different in Telehealth versus Outpatient Rehabilitation?
title_sort is the training intensity in phase two cardiovascular rehabilitation different in telehealth versus outpatient rehabilitation?
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8466823/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34575185
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10184069
work_keys_str_mv AT batalikladislav isthetrainingintensityinphasetwocardiovascularrehabilitationdifferentintelehealthversusoutpatientrehabilitation
AT peperagaryfallia isthetrainingintensityinphasetwocardiovascularrehabilitationdifferentintelehealthversusoutpatientrehabilitation
AT papathanasioujannis isthetrainingintensityinphasetwocardiovascularrehabilitationdifferentintelehealthversusoutpatientrehabilitation
AT rutkowskisebastian isthetrainingintensityinphasetwocardiovascularrehabilitationdifferentintelehealthversusoutpatientrehabilitation
AT liskadavid isthetrainingintensityinphasetwocardiovascularrehabilitationdifferentintelehealthversusoutpatientrehabilitation
AT batalikovakaterina isthetrainingintensityinphasetwocardiovascularrehabilitationdifferentintelehealthversusoutpatientrehabilitation
AT hartmanmartin isthetrainingintensityinphasetwocardiovascularrehabilitationdifferentintelehealthversusoutpatientrehabilitation
AT felsocimarian isthetrainingintensityinphasetwocardiovascularrehabilitationdifferentintelehealthversusoutpatientrehabilitation
AT dosbabafilip isthetrainingintensityinphasetwocardiovascularrehabilitationdifferentintelehealthversusoutpatientrehabilitation