{"title":"四种有氧运动强度处方技术在冠心病患者康复训练中的有效性和安全性。","authors":"Tao Chen, Huiying Zhu, Qingyuan Su","doi":"10.1155/2022/1647809","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective study was conducted on all patients with CHD who were admitted to CR and completed cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPET) in Guangdong Hospital of traditional Chinese medicine. According to the risk stratification method of CHD, all participants were divided into three groups: low, moderate, and high risk. The training target heart rates (HRt) of each participant were calculated according to the formula of heart-rate-reserve (HRR), maximum-heart-rate (MHR), target-heart-rate (THR), and anaerobic threshold (AT) method provided in the guideline. Among them, the HRR method using the maximum-heart-rate obtained by the age formula was named \"HRR method A,\" and that using the actual measured peak heart rate was named \"HRR method B.\" For the three groups, the effectiveness and safety indexes at the target-heart-rate zone set by the different formulas above are counted and compared using CPET data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 324 patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference between the target-heart-rate set by the HRR method A and AT method among the three groups (<i>P</i> > 0.05). The mean value of HRt set by other methods was lower than the AT heart rate (<i>P</i> < 0.05). The HRt set by the THR method was close to the AT, while that set by the MHR method was the lowest. The frequency of patients whose HRt was set by the MHR method was lower than the AT one, which was the highest. None of the participants had serious adverse events. There were no risks of ECG abnormalities in the low- and moderate-risk groups. The HRR method A had the highest incidence of various risks of ECG abnormalities, while the MHR method had the lowest one, and the safety of the THR method is close to that of the AT method (<i>P</i> < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The heart rate calculated by HRR method A is more consistent with the actual AT. All four techniques are safe in low- and moderate-risk patients. In high-risk patients, using HRR method A has certain risks. It is recommended to use the MHR method for safety reasons, but its effectiveness is low. If considering both effectiveness and safety, the THR method can be conservatively selected at the beginning of the CR program.</p>","PeriodicalId":9494,"journal":{"name":"Cardiology Research and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9307357/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness and Safety of Four Aerobic Exercise Intensity Prescription Techniques in Rehabilitation Training for Patients with Coronary Heart Disease.\",\"authors\":\"Tao Chen, Huiying Zhu, Qingyuan Su\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2022/1647809\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective study was conducted on all patients with CHD who were admitted to CR and completed cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPET) in Guangdong Hospital of traditional Chinese medicine. According to the risk stratification method of CHD, all participants were divided into three groups: low, moderate, and high risk. The training target heart rates (HRt) of each participant were calculated according to the formula of heart-rate-reserve (HRR), maximum-heart-rate (MHR), target-heart-rate (THR), and anaerobic threshold (AT) method provided in the guideline. Among them, the HRR method using the maximum-heart-rate obtained by the age formula was named \\\"HRR method A,\\\" and that using the actual measured peak heart rate was named \\\"HRR method B.\\\" For the three groups, the effectiveness and safety indexes at the target-heart-rate zone set by the different formulas above are counted and compared using CPET data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 324 patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference between the target-heart-rate set by the HRR method A and AT method among the three groups (<i>P</i> > 0.05). The mean value of HRt set by other methods was lower than the AT heart rate (<i>P</i> < 0.05). The HRt set by the THR method was close to the AT, while that set by the MHR method was the lowest. The frequency of patients whose HRt was set by the MHR method was lower than the AT one, which was the highest. None of the participants had serious adverse events. There were no risks of ECG abnormalities in the low- and moderate-risk groups. The HRR method A had the highest incidence of various risks of ECG abnormalities, while the MHR method had the lowest one, and the safety of the THR method is close to that of the AT method (<i>P</i> < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The heart rate calculated by HRR method A is more consistent with the actual AT. All four techniques are safe in low- and moderate-risk patients. In high-risk patients, using HRR method A has certain risks. It is recommended to use the MHR method for safety reasons, but its effectiveness is low. If considering both effectiveness and safety, the THR method can be conservatively selected at the beginning of the CR program.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9494,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cardiology Research and Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9307357/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cardiology Research and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1647809\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiology Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1647809","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
方法：对广东省中医院收治的所有冠心病患者进行回顾性研究，这些患者均接受了心肺运动测试（CPET）。根据心脏病风险分层方法，所有参与者被分为三组：低风险组、中度风险组和高度风险组。根据指南中提供的心率储备法（HRR）、最大心率法（MHR）、目标心率法（THR）和无氧阈值法（AT）公式计算出每位参与者的训练目标心率（HRt）。其中，使用年龄公式得出的最大心率的 HRR 方法被命名为 "HRR 方法 A"，使用实际测量的峰值心率的 HRR 方法被命名为 "HRR 方法 B"。利用 CPET 数据对三组患者在上述不同公式设定的目标心率区的有效性和安全性指标进行统计和比较：结果：共有 324 名患者参与了分析。结果：共纳入 324 例患者进行分析，三组患者在 HRR 法 A 和 AT 法设定的目标心率之间无明显差异（P>0.05）。其他方法设定的心率均值低于 AT 心率（P < 0.05）。THR 方法设定的 HRt 接近 AT，而 MHR 方法设定的 HRt 最低。用 MHR 方法设定 HRt 的患者频率低于 AT，而 AT 的患者频率最高。所有参与者均未发生严重不良事件。低风险组和中等风险组均无心电图异常风险。HRR方法A的各种心电图异常风险发生率最高，而MHR方法最低，THR方法的安全性与AT方法接近（P < 0.05）：结论：HRR 方法 A 计算出的心率与实际 AT 更为一致。这四种方法对于低危和中危患者都是安全的。对于高危患者，使用 HRR 方法 A 有一定风险。出于安全考虑，建议使用 MHR 方法，但其有效性较低。如果同时考虑有效性和安全性，可以在 CR 计划开始时保守地选择 THR 方法。
Effectiveness and Safety of Four Aerobic Exercise Intensity Prescription Techniques in Rehabilitation Training for Patients with Coronary Heart Disease.
Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on all patients with CHD who were admitted to CR and completed cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPET) in Guangdong Hospital of traditional Chinese medicine. According to the risk stratification method of CHD, all participants were divided into three groups: low, moderate, and high risk. The training target heart rates (HRt) of each participant were calculated according to the formula of heart-rate-reserve (HRR), maximum-heart-rate (MHR), target-heart-rate (THR), and anaerobic threshold (AT) method provided in the guideline. Among them, the HRR method using the maximum-heart-rate obtained by the age formula was named "HRR method A," and that using the actual measured peak heart rate was named "HRR method B." For the three groups, the effectiveness and safety indexes at the target-heart-rate zone set by the different formulas above are counted and compared using CPET data.
Results: A total of 324 patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference between the target-heart-rate set by the HRR method A and AT method among the three groups (P > 0.05). The mean value of HRt set by other methods was lower than the AT heart rate (P < 0.05). The HRt set by the THR method was close to the AT, while that set by the MHR method was the lowest. The frequency of patients whose HRt was set by the MHR method was lower than the AT one, which was the highest. None of the participants had serious adverse events. There were no risks of ECG abnormalities in the low- and moderate-risk groups. The HRR method A had the highest incidence of various risks of ECG abnormalities, while the MHR method had the lowest one, and the safety of the THR method is close to that of the AT method (P < 0.05).
Conclusion: The heart rate calculated by HRR method A is more consistent with the actual AT. All four techniques are safe in low- and moderate-risk patients. In high-risk patients, using HRR method A has certain risks. It is recommended to use the MHR method for safety reasons, but its effectiveness is low. If considering both effectiveness and safety, the THR method can be conservatively selected at the beginning of the CR program.
期刊介绍：
Cardiology Research and Practice is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies that focus on the diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular disease. The journal welcomes submissions related to systemic hypertension, arrhythmia, congestive heart failure, valvular heart disease, vascular disease, congenital heart disease, and cardiomyopathy.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
