European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2024
Impact of eccentric cycling in coronary rehabilitation program: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial versus conventional rehabilitation.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеPragmatic Clinical TrialНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Besson Delphine, Sow Amadou-Khalilou, Fournel Isabelle, Gouteron Anaïs, Gudjoncik Aurélie, Casillas Jean M, Ornetti Paul, Laroche Davy
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This randomized controlled trial examined the feasibility of adding eccentric exercise to a conventional cardiac rehabilitation program (CCRP) for coronary heart disease patients.
METHODS: Ninety-three patients were randomly assigned to either the MIX group (eccentric ergometer + CCRP) or the CON group (concentric ergometer + CCRP) for 7 weeks. Training effectiveness was assessed based on "good responders" showing improved functional capacities, such as 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance and maximal voluntary contraction of the plantar flexors (ankle MVC). Safety was monitored with a visual analog scale for muscle soreness, perceived exertion, and heart rate during training.
RESULTS: The proportion of good responders was similar between groups (26% in MIX, 29% in CON, P=0.744). Both groups improved in 6MWT (CON: 12.6%, MIX: 16.14%) and ankle MVC (CON: 15.5%, MIX: 11.30%), with no significant differences. Exercise tolerance did not differ significantly between the groups, but perceived effort was significantly lower in the MIX group (P<0.0001) compared to the CON group.
CONCLUSIONS: Integrating eccentric exercise into cardiac rehabilitation is safe and well-tolerated. Nevertheless, this study did not find significant advantages over conventional programs for coronary heart disease patients. Further research should explore specific patient groups or conditions where eccentric exercise may be more beneficial, emphasizing personalized prescriptions and gradual workload progression for better cardiac rehabilitation outcomes.
METHODS: Ninety-three patients were randomly assigned to either the MIX group (eccentric ergometer + CCRP) or the CON group (concentric ergometer + CCRP) for 7 weeks. Training effectiveness was assessed based on "good responders" showing improved functional capacities, such as 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance and maximal voluntary contraction of the plantar flexors (ankle MVC). Safety was monitored with a visual analog scale for muscle soreness, perceived exertion, and heart rate during training.
RESULTS: The proportion of good responders was similar between groups (26% in MIX, 29% in CON, P=0.744). Both groups improved in 6MWT (CON: 12.6%, MIX: 16.14%) and ankle MVC (CON: 15.5%, MIX: 11.30%), with no significant differences. Exercise tolerance did not differ significantly between the groups, but perceived effort was significantly lower in the MIX group (P<0.0001) compared to the CON group.
CONCLUSIONS: Integrating eccentric exercise into cardiac rehabilitation is safe and well-tolerated. Nevertheless, this study did not find significant advantages over conventional programs for coronary heart disease patients. Further research should explore specific patient groups or conditions where eccentric exercise may be more beneficial, emphasizing personalized prescriptions and gradual workload progression for better cardiac rehabilitation outcomes.