Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Hemodynamic response to high- and low-load resistance exercise in patients with coronary artery disease: a randomized, crossover clinical trial
Kambic T, Hadzic V, Lainscak M
International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health 2021 Apr;18(8):3905
clinical trial
5/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: No; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

Low-load resistance exercise (LL-RE) is recommended as an adjunct therapy to aerobic exercise during cardiac rehabilitation in patients with coronary artery disease. The safety and hemodynamic response to high-load (HL) RE remain unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the hemodynamic response during both HL-RE and LL-RE prior to cardiac rehabilitation. Forty-three patients with coronary artery disease and/or percutaneous coronary intervention performed three sets of leg-press exercise using HL-RE (eight repetitions at the intensity of 80% of one repetition maximum (1-RM)) and LL-RE (16 repetitions at the intensity of 40% 1-RM) in a randomized crossover sequence. Heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and rating of perceived exertion were measured at baseline, after each set of RE and post-exercise. No clinically relevant changes in HR and BP or in patient-reported symptoms were recorded during HL-RE or LL-RE. Compared with baseline, HR and SBP increased during LL-RE (from 66 bpm to 86 bpm, time effect: p < 0.001; from 129 mmHg to 146 mmHg, time effect: p < 0.001) and HL-RE (from 68 bpm to 86 bpm, time effect: p < 0.001; from 130 mmHg to 146 mmHg, time effect: p < 0.001). Compared with HL-RE, the increase in HR was greater after the final set of LL-RE (32% versus 28%, p = 0.015), without significant differences in SBP and DBP between LL-RE and HL-RE. Rating of perceived exertion was higher after the 1st set of HL-RE compared with LL-RE (median (interquartile range) 6 (5 to 7) versus 6 (5 to 6), p = 0.010). In patients with coronary artery disease, both HL-RE and LL-RE were safe and well-tolerated. Hemodynamic changes were similar and within the physiological response to RE.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help