Medicine · 2020
Benefits and effectiveness of using a wrist heart rate monitor as a telerehabilitation device in cardiac patients: A randomized controlled trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное 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.
Batalik Ladislav, Dosbaba Filip, Hartman Martin, Batalikova Katerina, Spinar Jindrich
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Telerehabilitation in cardiology has the potential to become the alternative to regular outpatient cardiac rehabilitation. Our study focuses on the wrist heart rate monitor as a telerehabilitation device, defines detected limitations, and compares results between home-based and regular outpatient rehabilitation methods, related to physical fitness, quality of life, and training adherence. The study design was a randomized controlled trial.
METHODS: Eligible 56 cardiac rehabilitation patients were randomized into a 12-week regular outpatient training group (ROT) and interventional home-based telerehabilitation group (ITG). For both groups, the intensity of the training was prescribed to be performed at 70% to 80% of heart rate reserve for 60 minutes, 3 times a week. The ITG patients started their training with a wrist heart rate monitor in their home environment. These patients received feedback once a week, reflecting data uploaded on the internet application. The ROT patients performed their exercise under the direct supervision of a physical specialist in a regular outpatient clinic. Physical fitness and health-related quality of life were assessed at baseline and after 12 weeks. Training adherence in both groups was determined and compared.
RESULTS: Fifty-one patients comleted the intervention (91%); no serious adverse events were recorded. Physical fitness expressed as peak oxygen uptake showed significant improvement (P < .001) in ROT group from 23.4 ± 3.3 to 25.9 ± 4.1 mL/kg/min and (P < .01) in ITG group from 23.7 ± 4.1 to 26.5 ± 5.7 mL/kg/min without significant between-group differences after 12 weeks of intervention. The training adherence between groups was similar.
CONCLUSION: Our study shows that telerehabilitation via wrist heart rate monitor could become an alternative kind of cardiac rehabilitation which deserves attention and further analyzing.
METHODS: Eligible 56 cardiac rehabilitation patients were randomized into a 12-week regular outpatient training group (ROT) and interventional home-based telerehabilitation group (ITG). For both groups, the intensity of the training was prescribed to be performed at 70% to 80% of heart rate reserve for 60 minutes, 3 times a week. The ITG patients started their training with a wrist heart rate monitor in their home environment. These patients received feedback once a week, reflecting data uploaded on the internet application. The ROT patients performed their exercise under the direct supervision of a physical specialist in a regular outpatient clinic. Physical fitness and health-related quality of life were assessed at baseline and after 12 weeks. Training adherence in both groups was determined and compared.
RESULTS: Fifty-one patients comleted the intervention (91%); no serious adverse events were recorded. Physical fitness expressed as peak oxygen uptake showed significant improvement (P < .001) in ROT group from 23.4 ± 3.3 to 25.9 ± 4.1 mL/kg/min and (P < .01) in ITG group from 23.7 ± 4.1 to 26.5 ± 5.7 mL/kg/min without significant between-group differences after 12 weeks of intervention. The training adherence between groups was similar.
CONCLUSION: Our study shows that telerehabilitation via wrist heart rate monitor could become an alternative kind of cardiac rehabilitation which deserves attention and further analyzing.