Cargando…

Effectiveness and Safety of Four Aerobic Exercise Intensity Prescription Techniques in Rehabilitation Training for Patients with Coronary Heart Disease

METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on all patients with CHD who were admitted to CR and completed cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPET) in Guangdong Hospital of traditional Chinese medicine. According to the risk stratification method of CHD, all participants were divided into three groups...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Tao, Zhu, Huiying, Su, Qingyuan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9307357/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35874554
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/1647809
_version_ 1784752742027231232
author Chen, Tao
Zhu, Huiying
Su, Qingyuan
author_facet Chen, Tao
Zhu, Huiying
Su, Qingyuan
author_sort Chen, Tao
collection PubMed
description METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on all patients with CHD who were admitted to CR and completed cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPET) in Guangdong Hospital of traditional Chinese medicine. According to the risk stratification method of CHD, all participants were divided into three groups: low, moderate, and high risk. The training target heart rates (HRt) of each participant were calculated according to the formula of heart-rate-reserve (HRR), maximum-heart-rate (MHR), target-heart-rate (THR), and anaerobic threshold (AT) method provided in the guideline. Among them, the HRR method using the maximum-heart-rate obtained by the age formula was named “HRR method A,” and that using the actual measured peak heart rate was named “HRR method B.” For the three groups, the effectiveness and safety indexes at the target-heart-rate zone set by the different formulas above are counted and compared using CPET data. RESULTS: A total of 324 patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference between the target-heart-rate set by the HRR method A and AT method among the three groups (P > 0.05). The mean value of HRt set by other methods was lower than the AT heart rate (P < 0.05). The HRt set by the THR method was close to the AT, while that set by the MHR method was the lowest. The frequency of patients whose HRt was set by the MHR method was lower than the AT one, which was the highest. None of the participants had serious adverse events. There were no risks of ECG abnormalities in the low- and moderate-risk groups. The HRR method A had the highest incidence of various risks of ECG abnormalities, while the MHR method had the lowest one, and the safety of the THR method is close to that of the AT method (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The heart rate calculated by HRR method A is more consistent with the actual AT. All four techniques are safe in low- and moderate-risk patients. In high-risk patients, using HRR method A has certain risks. It is recommended to use the MHR method for safety reasons, but its effectiveness is low. If considering both effectiveness and safety, the THR method can be conservatively selected at the beginning of the CR program.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9307357
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93073572022-07-23 Effectiveness and Safety of Four Aerobic Exercise Intensity Prescription Techniques in Rehabilitation Training for Patients with Coronary Heart Disease Chen, Tao Zhu, Huiying Su, Qingyuan Cardiol Res Pract Research Article METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on all patients with CHD who were admitted to CR and completed cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPET) in Guangdong Hospital of traditional Chinese medicine. According to the risk stratification method of CHD, all participants were divided into three groups: low, moderate, and high risk. The training target heart rates (HRt) of each participant were calculated according to the formula of heart-rate-reserve (HRR), maximum-heart-rate (MHR), target-heart-rate (THR), and anaerobic threshold (AT) method provided in the guideline. Among them, the HRR method using the maximum-heart-rate obtained by the age formula was named “HRR method A,” and that using the actual measured peak heart rate was named “HRR method B.” For the three groups, the effectiveness and safety indexes at the target-heart-rate zone set by the different formulas above are counted and compared using CPET data. RESULTS: A total of 324 patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference between the target-heart-rate set by the HRR method A and AT method among the three groups (P > 0.05). The mean value of HRt set by other methods was lower than the AT heart rate (P < 0.05). The HRt set by the THR method was close to the AT, while that set by the MHR method was the lowest. The frequency of patients whose HRt was set by the MHR method was lower than the AT one, which was the highest. None of the participants had serious adverse events. There were no risks of ECG abnormalities in the low- and moderate-risk groups. The HRR method A had the highest incidence of various risks of ECG abnormalities, while the MHR method had the lowest one, and the safety of the THR method is close to that of the AT method (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The heart rate calculated by HRR method A is more consistent with the actual AT. All four techniques are safe in low- and moderate-risk patients. In high-risk patients, using HRR method A has certain risks. It is recommended to use the MHR method for safety reasons, but its effectiveness is low. If considering both effectiveness and safety, the THR method can be conservatively selected at the beginning of the CR program. Hindawi 2022-07-15 /pmc/articles/PMC9307357/ /pubmed/35874554 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/1647809 Text en Copyright © 2022 Tao Chen et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Chen, Tao
Zhu, Huiying
Su, Qingyuan
Effectiveness and Safety of Four Aerobic Exercise Intensity Prescription Techniques in Rehabilitation Training for Patients with Coronary Heart Disease
title Effectiveness and Safety of Four Aerobic Exercise Intensity Prescription Techniques in Rehabilitation Training for Patients with Coronary Heart Disease
title_full Effectiveness and Safety of Four Aerobic Exercise Intensity Prescription Techniques in Rehabilitation Training for Patients with Coronary Heart Disease
title_fullStr Effectiveness and Safety of Four Aerobic Exercise Intensity Prescription Techniques in Rehabilitation Training for Patients with Coronary Heart Disease
title_full_unstemmed Effectiveness and Safety of Four Aerobic Exercise Intensity Prescription Techniques in Rehabilitation Training for Patients with Coronary Heart Disease
title_short Effectiveness and Safety of Four Aerobic Exercise Intensity Prescription Techniques in Rehabilitation Training for Patients with Coronary Heart Disease
title_sort effectiveness and safety of four aerobic exercise intensity prescription techniques in rehabilitation training for patients with coronary heart disease
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9307357/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35874554
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/1647809
work_keys_str_mv AT chentao effectivenessandsafetyoffouraerobicexerciseintensityprescriptiontechniquesinrehabilitationtrainingforpatientswithcoronaryheartdisease
AT zhuhuiying effectivenessandsafetyoffouraerobicexerciseintensityprescriptiontechniquesinrehabilitationtrainingforpatientswithcoronaryheartdisease
AT suqingyuan effectivenessandsafetyoffouraerobicexerciseintensityprescriptiontechniquesinrehabilitationtrainingforpatientswithcoronaryheartdisease