Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
The effects of baseline heart rate recovery normality and exercise training protocol on heart rate recovery in patients with heart failure |
Yaylali YT, Findikoglu G, Yurtdas M, Konukcu S, Senol H |
The Anatolian Journal of Cardiology 2015 Sep;15(9):727-734 |
clinical trial |
5/10 [Eligibility criteria: No; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: No; 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* |
OBJECTIVE: It is unclear which exercise training protocol yields superior heart rate recovery (HRR) improvement in heart failure (HF) patients. Whether baseline HRR normality plays a role in the improvement is unknown. We hypothesized that an exercise training protocol and baseline HRR normality would be factors in altering HRR in HF patients. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, controlled and 3 group parallel study, 41 stable HF patients were randomly assigned to 3-times-weekly training sessions for 12 weeks, consisting of (i) 30 minutes of interval training (IT) (n = 17, 63.7 +/- 8.8 years old) versus (ii) 30 minutes of continuous training (CT) (n = 13, 59.6 +/- 6.8 years old) versus (iii) no training (CON) (n = 11, 60.6 +/- 9.9 years old). Each patient had cardiopulmonary exercise testing before and after the training program. Maximum heart rates attained during the test and heart rates at 1 and 2 min (HRR1 and HRR2) during the recovery phase were recorded. Paired samples t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for comparisons before and after training. One-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis variance analysis was used for comparisons among groups. RESULTS: HRR1 was unchanged after training. HRR2 improved in the IT group after training, and post-training HRR2 values were significantly faster in the IT group than in controls. Both HRR1 and HRR2 was significantly faster, irrespective of exercise protocol in patients with abnormal baseline values after training. CONCLUSION: HRR1 did not improve after training. HRR2 improved only in the IT group. Both HRRs in patients with abnormal baseline values improved after both exercise protocols. IT might be superior to CT in improving HRR2. Baseline HRR might play a role in its response to exercise.
|