Group-based cardiac rehabilitation interventions. A challenge for physical and rehabilitation medicine physicians: a randomized controlled trial
Jannis V Papathanasiou, Ivo Petrov, Maria P Tokmakova, Donka D Dimitrova, Liubomir Spasov, Nigyar S Dzhafer, Dorothea Tsekoura, Yannis Dionyssiotis, Arthur S Ferreira, Agnaldo J Lopes, Eugenia Rosulescu, Calogero Foti, Jannis V Papathanasiou, Ivo Petrov, Maria P Tokmakova, Donka D Dimitrova, Liubomir Spasov, Nigyar S Dzhafer, Dorothea Tsekoura, Yannis Dionyssiotis, Arthur S Ferreira, Agnaldo J Lopes, Eugenia Rosulescu, Calogero Foti
Abstract
Background: In recent decades, many studies are focused on different training modalities comparison in patients with cardiac diseases. High intensity aerobic interval training (HIAIT) has been considered as an alternative approach to moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) in rehabilitation of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF).
Aim: To highlight the superiority of the modified group-based HIAIT intervention (m-Ullevaal) compared to the moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT), also to encourage physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) physicians to apply the m-Ullevaal intervention in routine cardiac rehabilitation (CR) practice.
Design: А single-blind, prospective randomized controlled trial.
Setting: Medical Center of Rehabilitation and Sports Medicine, Plovdiv, Bulgaria outpatients were enrolled.
Population: One hundred and twenty subjects of both genders, mean age of 63.73±6.68 years, with stable CHF, NYHA classes II to IIIB, were randomly assigned to m-Ullevaal group (N.=60) or to MICT (N.=60) group. Both CR protocols were conducted throughout a 12-week period.
Methods: Functional exercise capacity (FEC), assessed with six-minute walk test, and peak oxygen uptake (VO<inf>2peak</inf>), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), m-Borg's perceived exertion scale (mBPES), and quality of life (QoL) were outcome measures evaluated.
Results: Significant improvement in FEC (P<0.001), LVEF (P<0.001), mBPES and QoL (P<0.001), was observed 12 weeks after both CR interventions (T2). However, the participants performed m-Ullevaal protocol achieved a greater improvement compared to those performed MICT (P<0.001).
Conclusions: The m-Ullevaal protocol seems to be more beneficial and more effective compared to MICT. PRM physicians can efficiently apply the m-Ullevaal protocol in CHF patients rehabilitation.
Clinical rehabilitation impact: Group-based HIAIT interventions can be widely applied by PRM physicians in CHF patients rehabilitation.
Source: PubMed