Insufficient exercise intensity for clinical benefit? Monitoring and quantification of a community-based Phase III cardiac rehabilitation programme: A United Kingdom perspective.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
13
03
2019
accepted:
15
05
2019
entrez:
14
6
2019
pubmed:
14
6
2019
medline:
10
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In recent years, criticism of the percentage range approach for individualised exercise prescription has intensified and we were concerned that sub-optimal exercise dose (especially intensity) may be in part responsible for the variability in the effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programmes in the United Kingdom (UK). The aim was to investigate the fidelity of a structured Phase III CR programme, by monitoring and quantifying exercise training intensity. Observational study. The programme comprised 16 sessions over 8 weeks, where patients undertook an interval, circuit training approach within national guidelines for exercise prescription (40-70% heart rate reserve [HRR]). All patients wore an Apple Watch (Series 0 or 2, Watch OS2.0.1, Apple Inc., California, USA). We compared the mean % heart rate reserve (%HRR) achieved during the cardiovascular training component (%HRR-CV) of a circuit-based programme, with the %HRR during the active recovery phases (%HRR-AR) in a randomly selected cohort of patients attending standard CR. We then compared the mean %HRR-CV achieved with the minimal exercise intensity threshold during supervised exercise (40% HRR) recommended by national governing bodies. Thirty cardiac patients (83% male; mean age [SD] 67 [10] years; BMI 28.3 [4.6] kg∙m-2) were recruited. We captured 332 individual training sessions. The mean %HRR-CV and %HRR-AR were 37 (10) %, and 31 (13) %, respectively. There was weak evidence to support the alternative hypothesis of a difference between the %HRR-CV and 40% HRR. There was very strong evidence to accept the alternative hypothesis that the mean %HRR-AR was lower than the mean %HRR-CV, median standardised effect size 1.1 (95%CI: 0.563 to 1.669), with a moderate to large effect. Mean exercise training intensity was below the lower limit of the minimal training intensity guidelines for a Phase III CR programme. These findings may be in part responsible for previous reports highlighting the significant variability in effectiveness of UK CR services and poor CRF improvements observed from several prior investigations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In recent years, criticism of the percentage range approach for individualised exercise prescription has intensified and we were concerned that sub-optimal exercise dose (especially intensity) may be in part responsible for the variability in the effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programmes in the United Kingdom (UK). The aim was to investigate the fidelity of a structured Phase III CR programme, by monitoring and quantifying exercise training intensity.
DESIGN
Observational study.
METHODS
The programme comprised 16 sessions over 8 weeks, where patients undertook an interval, circuit training approach within national guidelines for exercise prescription (40-70% heart rate reserve [HRR]). All patients wore an Apple Watch (Series 0 or 2, Watch OS2.0.1, Apple Inc., California, USA). We compared the mean % heart rate reserve (%HRR) achieved during the cardiovascular training component (%HRR-CV) of a circuit-based programme, with the %HRR during the active recovery phases (%HRR-AR) in a randomly selected cohort of patients attending standard CR. We then compared the mean %HRR-CV achieved with the minimal exercise intensity threshold during supervised exercise (40% HRR) recommended by national governing bodies.
RESULTS
Thirty cardiac patients (83% male; mean age [SD] 67 [10] years; BMI 28.3 [4.6] kg∙m-2) were recruited. We captured 332 individual training sessions. The mean %HRR-CV and %HRR-AR were 37 (10) %, and 31 (13) %, respectively. There was weak evidence to support the alternative hypothesis of a difference between the %HRR-CV and 40% HRR. There was very strong evidence to accept the alternative hypothesis that the mean %HRR-AR was lower than the mean %HRR-CV, median standardised effect size 1.1 (95%CI: 0.563 to 1.669), with a moderate to large effect.
CONCLUSION
Mean exercise training intensity was below the lower limit of the minimal training intensity guidelines for a Phase III CR programme. These findings may be in part responsible for previous reports highlighting the significant variability in effectiveness of UK CR services and poor CRF improvements observed from several prior investigations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31194759
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217654
pii: PONE-D-19-07280
pmc: PMC6563987
doi:
Types de publication
Clinical Trial, Phase III
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0217654Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Sports Med. 2014 Aug;44(8):1113-24
pubmed: 24807838
Int J Sports Med. 1990 Jun;11(3):218-22
pubmed: 2373580
Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2017 Jan;60(1):43-49
pubmed: 26996956
J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2007 May-Jun;27(3):121-9
pubmed: 17558191
Br J Sports Med. 2019 Nov;53(21):1341-1351
pubmed: 30121584
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999 Sep;31(9):1342-5
pubmed: 10487378
Int J Cardiol. 2016 Oct 15;221:644-51
pubmed: 27423084
Sports Med Int Open. 2017 Oct 18;1(6):E206-E211
pubmed: 30539109
Heart. 2013 Jun;99(11):785-90
pubmed: 23178183
Int J Sports Med. 1989 Jun;10(3):212-6
pubmed: 2674039
Int J Cardiol. 2013 Aug 10;167(3):894-902
pubmed: 22206636
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019 Apr;51(4):681-691
pubmed: 30673687
Open Heart. 2017 Jan 09;4(1):e000519
pubmed: 28123763
J Sci Med Sport. 2010 Jan;13(1):74-9
pubmed: 19230766
Am Heart J. 2004 Nov;148(5):910-4
pubmed: 15523326
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2012 Feb;22(1):113-8
pubmed: 20561283
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1990;38(2):133-7
pubmed: 2338109
Front Pharmacol. 2015 Apr 17;6:77
pubmed: 25941487
Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2008 Feb;15(1):67-72
pubmed: 18277188
Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2014 Jun;21(6):664-81
pubmed: 22718797
Physiol Meas. 2007 Mar;28(3):R1-39
pubmed: 17322588
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1994 May;26(5):538-46
pubmed: 8007799
BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2015 Jul 04;7:16
pubmed: 26146564