European journal of preventive cardiology · 2019
Exercise training intensity determination in cardiovascular rehabilitation: Should the guidelines be reconsidered?
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.
Hansen Dominique, Bonné Kim, Alders Toon, Hermans Ann, Copermans Katrien, Swinnen Hans, Maris Vincent, Jansegers Thomas, Mathijs Wout, Haenen Laura, Vaes Johan, Govaerts Emmanuela, Reenaers Veerle, Frederix Ines, Dendale Paul
Аннотация
AIMS: In the rehabilitation of cardiovascular disease patients a correct determination of the endurance-type exercise intensity is important to generate health benefits and preserve medical safety. It remains to be assessed whether the guideline-based exercise intensity domains are internally consistent and agree with physiological responses to exercise in cardiovascular disease patients.
METHODS: A total of 272 cardiovascular disease patients without pacemaker executed a maximal cardiopulmonary exercise test on bike (peak respiratory gas exchange ratio >1.09), to assess peak heart rate (HRpeak), oxygen uptake (VO2peak) and cycling power output (Wpeak). The first and second ventilatory threshold (VT1 and VT2, respectively) was determined and extrapolated to %VO2peak, %HRpeak, %heart rate reserve (%HRR) and %Wpeak for comparison with guideline-based exercise intensity domains.
RESULTS: VT1 was noted at 62 ± 10% VO2peak, 75 ± 10% HRpeak, 42 ± 14% HRR and 47 ± 11% Wpeak, corresponding to the high intensity exercise domain (for %VO2peak and %HRpeak) or low intensity exercise domain (for %Wpeak and %HRR). VT2 was noted at 84 ± 9% VO2peak, 88 ± 8% HRpeak, 74 ± 15% HRR and 76 ± 11% Wpeak, corresponding to the high intensity exercise domain (for %HRR and %Wpeak) or very hard exercise domain (for %HRpeak and %VO2peak). At best (when using %Wpeak) in only 63% and 72% of all patients VT1 and VT2, respectively, corresponded to the same guideline-based exercise intensity domain, but this dropped to about 48% and 52% at worst (when using %HRR and %HRpeak, respectively). In particular, the patient's VO2peak related to differently elicited guideline-based exercise intensity domains (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The guideline-based exercise intensity domains for cardiovascular disease patients seem inconsistent, thus reiterating the need for adjustment.
METHODS: A total of 272 cardiovascular disease patients without pacemaker executed a maximal cardiopulmonary exercise test on bike (peak respiratory gas exchange ratio >1.09), to assess peak heart rate (HRpeak), oxygen uptake (VO2peak) and cycling power output (Wpeak). The first and second ventilatory threshold (VT1 and VT2, respectively) was determined and extrapolated to %VO2peak, %HRpeak, %heart rate reserve (%HRR) and %Wpeak for comparison with guideline-based exercise intensity domains.
RESULTS: VT1 was noted at 62 ± 10% VO2peak, 75 ± 10% HRpeak, 42 ± 14% HRR and 47 ± 11% Wpeak, corresponding to the high intensity exercise domain (for %VO2peak and %HRpeak) or low intensity exercise domain (for %Wpeak and %HRR). VT2 was noted at 84 ± 9% VO2peak, 88 ± 8% HRpeak, 74 ± 15% HRR and 76 ± 11% Wpeak, corresponding to the high intensity exercise domain (for %HRR and %Wpeak) or very hard exercise domain (for %HRpeak and %VO2peak). At best (when using %Wpeak) in only 63% and 72% of all patients VT1 and VT2, respectively, corresponded to the same guideline-based exercise intensity domain, but this dropped to about 48% and 52% at worst (when using %HRR and %HRpeak, respectively). In particular, the patient's VO2peak related to differently elicited guideline-based exercise intensity domains (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The guideline-based exercise intensity domains for cardiovascular disease patients seem inconsistent, thus reiterating the need for adjustment.