Journal of cardiopulmonary rehabilitation and prevention · 2020
Role of Left Ventricle Function in Cardiac Rehabilitation Outcomes in Stage B Heart Failure Patients.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Braga Marta, Nascimento Helena, Nunes Alzira, Araújo Paulo, Pinto Roberto, Rodrigues Joana, Araújo Vítor, Parada-Pereira Fernando, Maciel Maria Júlia, Rocha Afonso
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To study the role of left ventricle systolic function in cardiac rehabilitation program (CRP) response in stage B heart failure patients.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was completed of 691 patients with previous myocardial infarction that underwent a CRP, classified in 3 groups: preserved ejection fraction (pEF), mid-range ejection fraction (mrEF), and reduced ejection fraction (rEF). We compared the response to CRP analyzing the relative changes of estimated cardiorespiratory fitness (CRFe), resting heart rate (HR), and chronotropic index (CI).
RESULTS: After exercise training (median [interquartile range]) mrEF (23.9% [9.7, 40.8]) and rEF (23.9% [9.7, 41.2]) groups had a better CRFe response to CRP than pEF groups (17.6% [0.0, 35.9]), P = .009. CI increased similarly in all groups. We found a small effect of CRP on resting HR.
CONCLUSION: Exercise-based CRP yields notable benefits to mrEF and rEF groups and the magnitude of its benefits is, at least, similar to that found in pEF patients.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was completed of 691 patients with previous myocardial infarction that underwent a CRP, classified in 3 groups: preserved ejection fraction (pEF), mid-range ejection fraction (mrEF), and reduced ejection fraction (rEF). We compared the response to CRP analyzing the relative changes of estimated cardiorespiratory fitness (CRFe), resting heart rate (HR), and chronotropic index (CI).
RESULTS: After exercise training (median [interquartile range]) mrEF (23.9% [9.7, 40.8]) and rEF (23.9% [9.7, 41.2]) groups had a better CRFe response to CRP than pEF groups (17.6% [0.0, 35.9]), P = .009. CI increased similarly in all groups. We found a small effect of CRP on resting HR.
CONCLUSION: Exercise-based CRP yields notable benefits to mrEF and rEF groups and the magnitude of its benefits is, at least, similar to that found in pEF patients.