Journal of cardiopulmonary rehabilitation and prevention · 2023
Among Patients Taking Beta-Adrenergic Blockade Therapy, Use Measured (Not Predicted) Maximal Heart Rate to Calculate a Target Heart Rate for Cardiac Rehabilitation.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание 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.
Keteyian Steven J, Steenson Katherina, Grimshaw Crystal, Mandel Noah, Koester-Qualters Wanda, Berry Robert, Kerrigan Dennis J, Ehrman Jonathon K, Peterson Edward L, Brawner Clinton A
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Among patients in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) on beta-adrenergic blockade (βB) therapy, this study describes the frequency for which target heart rate (THR) values computed using a predicted maximal heart rate (HR max ), correspond to a THR computed using a measured HR max in the guideline-based heart rate reserve (HR reserve ) method.
METHODS: Before CR, patients completed a cardiopulmonary exercise test to measure HR max , with the data used to determine THR via the HR reserve method. Additionally, predicted HR max was computed for all patients using the 220 - age equation and two disease-specific equations, with the predicted values used to calculate THR via the straight percent and HR reserve methods. The THR was also computed using resting heart rate (HR) +20 and +30 bpm.
RESULTS: Mean predicted HR max using the 220 - age equation (161 ± 11 bpm) and the disease-specific equations (123 ± 9 bpm) differed ( P < .001) from measured HR max (133 ± 21 bpm). Also, THR computed using predicted HR max resulted in values that were infrequently within the guideline-based HR reserve range calculated using measured HR max . Specifically, 0 to ≤61% of patients would have had an exercise training HR that fell within the guideline-based range of 50-80% of measured HR reserve . Use of standing resting HR +20 or +30 bpm would have resulted in 100% and 48%, respectively, of patients exercising below 50% of HR reserve .
CONCLUSIONS: A THR computed using either predicted HR max or resting HR +20 or +30 bpm seldom results in a prescribed exercise intensity that is consistent with guideline recommendations for patients in CR.
METHODS: Before CR, patients completed a cardiopulmonary exercise test to measure HR max , with the data used to determine THR via the HR reserve method. Additionally, predicted HR max was computed for all patients using the 220 - age equation and two disease-specific equations, with the predicted values used to calculate THR via the straight percent and HR reserve methods. The THR was also computed using resting heart rate (HR) +20 and +30 bpm.
RESULTS: Mean predicted HR max using the 220 - age equation (161 ± 11 bpm) and the disease-specific equations (123 ± 9 bpm) differed ( P < .001) from measured HR max (133 ± 21 bpm). Also, THR computed using predicted HR max resulted in values that were infrequently within the guideline-based HR reserve range calculated using measured HR max . Specifically, 0 to ≤61% of patients would have had an exercise training HR that fell within the guideline-based range of 50-80% of measured HR reserve . Use of standing resting HR +20 or +30 bpm would have resulted in 100% and 48%, respectively, of patients exercising below 50% of HR reserve .
CONCLUSIONS: A THR computed using either predicted HR max or resting HR +20 or +30 bpm seldom results in a prescribed exercise intensity that is consistent with guideline recommendations for patients in CR.