Centre for Sports and Exercise Science, School of Biological Sciences, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester, Essex CO4 3SQ, UK.
Heart. 2013 Jun;99(11):785-90. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2012-303055. Epub 2012 Nov 24.
Exercise training is a key component of cardiac rehabilitation but there is a discrepancy between the high volume of exercise prescribed in trials comprising the evidence base and the lower volume prescribed to UK patients.
To quantify prescribed exercise volume and changes in cardiorespiratory fitness in UK cardiac rehabilitation patients.
We accessed n=950 patients who completed cardiac rehabilitation at four UK centres and extracted clinical data and details of cardiorespiratory fitness testing pre- and post-rehabilitation. We calculated mean and effect size (d) for change in fitness at each centre and converted values to metabolic equivalent (METs). We calculated a fixed-effects estimate of change in fitness expressed as METs and d.
Patients completed 6 to 16 (median 8) supervised exercise sessions. Effect sizes for changes in fitness were d=0.34-0.99 in test-specific raw units and d=0.34-0.96 expressed as METs. The pooled fixed effect estimate for change in fitness was 0.52 METs (95% CI 0.51 to 0.53); or an effect size of d=0.59 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.60).
Gains in fitness varied by centre and fitness assessment protocol but the overall increase in fitness (0.52 METs) was only a third the mean estimate reported in a recent systematic review (1.55 METs). The starkest difference in clinical practice in the UK centres we sampled and the trials which comprise the evidence-base for cardiac rehabilitation was the small volume of exercise completed by UK patients. The exercise training volume prescribed was also only a third that reported in most international studies. If representative of UK services, these low training volumes and small increases in cardiorespiratory fitness may partially explain the reported inefficacy of UK cardiac rehabilitation to reduce patient mortality and morbidity.
运动训练是心脏康复的关键组成部分,但在临床试验证据基础中规定的运动量与英国患者规定的运动量之间存在差异。
量化英国心脏康复患者的规定运动量和心肺适应能力的变化。
我们访问了在英国四个中心完成心脏康复的 950 名患者,并提取了临床数据和心肺适应能力测试的详细信息,包括康复前和康复后的信息。我们计算了每个中心的体能变化的平均值和效应量(d),并将值转换为代谢当量(MET)。我们计算了以 MET 表示的体能变化的固定效应估计值和 d。
患者完成了 6 到 16 次(中位数为 8 次)的监督运动课程。以特定测试的原始单位表示的体能变化的效应量为 d=0.34-0.99,以 MET 表示的效应量为 d=0.34-0.96。以 MET 表示的体能变化的总体固定效应估计值为 0.52 MET(95%置信区间为 0.51 至 0.53);或效应量 d=0.59(95%置信区间为 0.58 至 0.60)。
适应能力的提高因中心和适应能力评估方案而异,但总体适应能力的提高(0.52 MET)仅为最近系统综述报告的平均估计值(1.55 MET)的三分之一。在我们抽样的英国中心和心脏康复证据基础的试验中,实践中最明显的差异是英国患者完成的运动量小。规定的运动训练量也仅为大多数国际研究报告的三分之一。如果代表英国服务,则这些低训练量和心肺适应能力的微小提高可能部分解释了英国心脏康复报告的降低患者死亡率和发病率的无效性。