Alexis Gillet, Michel Lamotte, Kevin Forton, Ana Roussoulières, Céline Dewachter, Jason Bouziotis, Gaël Deboeck, Philippe van de Borne
{"title":"Hemodynamic Tolerance of New Resistance Training Methods in Patients With Heart Failure and Coronary Artery Disease: A RANDOMIZED CROSSOVER STUDY.","authors":"Alexis Gillet, Michel Lamotte, Kevin Forton, Ana Roussoulières, Céline Dewachter, Jason Bouziotis, Gaël Deboeck, Philippe van de Borne","doi":"10.1097/HCR.0000000000000794","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to determine and compare the effectiveness of three different resistance training (RT) methods for cardiac rehabilitation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Individuals with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF, n = 23) or coronary artery disease (CAD, n = 22) and healthy controls (CTRL, n = 29) participated in this randomized crossover trial of RT exercises at 70% of the one-maximal repetition on a leg extension machine. Peak heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) were measured noninvasively. The three RT methods were five sets of increasing repetitions from three to seven (RISE), of decreasing repetitions from seven to three (DROP), and three sets of nine repetitions (USUAL). Interset rest intervals were 15 sec for RISE and DROP and 60 sec for USUAL.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Peak HR differed on average by <4 bpm between methods in the HFrEF and CAD groups ( P < .02). Rises in systolic BP (SBP) in the HFrEF group were comparable across methods. In the CAD group, mean SBP at peak exercise increased more in RISE and DROP than in USUAL ( P < .001), but the increase was ≤10 mm Hg. In the CTRL group, SBP was higher for DROP than for USUAL (152 ± 22 vs 144 ± 24 mm Hg, respectively; P < .01). Peak cardiac output and perceived exertion did not differ between methods.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The RISE, DROP, and USUAL RT methods induced a similar perception of effort and similar increases in peak HR and BP. The RISE and DROP methods appear more efficient as they allow a comparable training volume in a shorter time than the USUAL method.</p>","PeriodicalId":15192,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/HCR.0000000000000794","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/4/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine and compare the effectiveness of three different resistance training (RT) methods for cardiac rehabilitation.
Methods: Individuals with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF, n = 23) or coronary artery disease (CAD, n = 22) and healthy controls (CTRL, n = 29) participated in this randomized crossover trial of RT exercises at 70% of the one-maximal repetition on a leg extension machine. Peak heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) were measured noninvasively. The three RT methods were five sets of increasing repetitions from three to seven (RISE), of decreasing repetitions from seven to three (DROP), and three sets of nine repetitions (USUAL). Interset rest intervals were 15 sec for RISE and DROP and 60 sec for USUAL.
Results: Peak HR differed on average by <4 bpm between methods in the HFrEF and CAD groups ( P < .02). Rises in systolic BP (SBP) in the HFrEF group were comparable across methods. In the CAD group, mean SBP at peak exercise increased more in RISE and DROP than in USUAL ( P < .001), but the increase was ≤10 mm Hg. In the CTRL group, SBP was higher for DROP than for USUAL (152 ± 22 vs 144 ± 24 mm Hg, respectively; P < .01). Peak cardiac output and perceived exertion did not differ between methods.
Conclusions: The RISE, DROP, and USUAL RT methods induced a similar perception of effort and similar increases in peak HR and BP. The RISE and DROP methods appear more efficient as they allow a comparable training volume in a shorter time than the USUAL method.
期刊介绍:
JCRP was the first, and remains the only, professional journal dedicated to improving multidisciplinary clinical practice and expanding research evidence specific to both cardiovascular and pulmonary rehabilitation. This includes exercise testing and prescription, behavioral medicine, and cardiopulmonary risk factor management. In 2007, JCRP expanded its scope to include primary prevention of cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases. JCRP publishes scientific and clinical peer-reviewed Original Investigations, Reviews, and Brief or Case Reports focused on the causes, prevention, and treatment of individuals with cardiovascular or pulmonary diseases in both a print and online-only format. Editorial features include Editorials, Invited Commentaries, Literature Updates, and Clinically-relevant Topical Updates. JCRP is the official Journal of the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the Canadian Association of Cardiac Rehabilitation.