Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024
A comparative analysis of open heart surgery and minimally invasive cardiac surgery in exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Hubisz Maciej Marek, van der Stouwe Jan Gerrit, Ziob Mira, Steiner Sonja, Uzun Neslihan, Weibel Sandra, Lesan Vlada, Erni Dominic, Meier-Ruge Ladina, Rodriguez Cetina Biefer Hector, Dzemali Omer, Vontobel Jan, Niederseer David
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Historically, the majority of patients admitted to inpatient exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (EBCR) have undergone open heart surgery (OHS). However, with advances in minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS), these patient groups are also increasingly referred for inpatient EBCR. Herein, we aimed to compare the progress of these groups during rehabilitation.
METHODS: In this prospective, nonrandomized study, 403 inpatient EBCR patients were recruited from December 2022 until September 2023 and stratified into two groups: OHS, and MICS. Participants completed a 3-4-week certified EBCR program. The primary endpoint was defined as a change in the 6-minute walk test (6MWT). Moreover, a comprehensive panel of quality-of-life (QoL) assessments were performed at admission and discharge.
RESULTS: At baseline, patients with OHS were older (66 years [IQR 59 - 72]), more often male (83%), and underwent emergency/urgent procedures more often (20%) than patients with MICS. Furthermore, patients with MICS showed a better 6MWT at admission (426 meters [IQR 336 - 483]) compared to patients with OHS (381 meters [IQR 299 - 453]). While all patients were able to increase the distance in the 6MWT, regression analyses in fully adjusted models showed no difference in improvements between the two groups (β -5, 95% CI, -26 - 14, p = 0.58). Moreover, during EBCR, we observed significant improvements in all QoL measures in all groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, improvements in fitness, as assessed by the 6WMT were observed in all groups. Furthermore, multiple QoL measures improved equally across all groups. These encouraging results emphasize the importance of EBCR.
METHODS: In this prospective, nonrandomized study, 403 inpatient EBCR patients were recruited from December 2022 until September 2023 and stratified into two groups: OHS, and MICS. Participants completed a 3-4-week certified EBCR program. The primary endpoint was defined as a change in the 6-minute walk test (6MWT). Moreover, a comprehensive panel of quality-of-life (QoL) assessments were performed at admission and discharge.
RESULTS: At baseline, patients with OHS were older (66 years [IQR 59 - 72]), more often male (83%), and underwent emergency/urgent procedures more often (20%) than patients with MICS. Furthermore, patients with MICS showed a better 6MWT at admission (426 meters [IQR 336 - 483]) compared to patients with OHS (381 meters [IQR 299 - 453]). While all patients were able to increase the distance in the 6MWT, regression analyses in fully adjusted models showed no difference in improvements between the two groups (β -5, 95% CI, -26 - 14, p = 0.58). Moreover, during EBCR, we observed significant improvements in all QoL measures in all groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, improvements in fitness, as assessed by the 6WMT were observed in all groups. Furthermore, multiple QoL measures improved equally across all groups. These encouraging results emphasize the importance of EBCR.