PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9856924

Comparison of left ventricular function during interval versus steady-state exercise training in patients with chronic congestive heart failure.

Abstract

This study sought to assess the safety of interval exercise training in patients with chronic congestive heart failure (CHF) with respect to left ventricular (LV) function. For effective rehabilitation in CHF, both aerobic capacity and muscle strength need to be improved. We have previously demonstrated in both coronary artery bypass surgery and patients with CHF that interval exercise training (IET) offers advantages over steady-state exercise training (SSET). However, because LV function during IET has not yet been studied, the safety of this method in CHF remains unclear. To assess LV function during IET and SSET, at the same average power output, 11 patients with stable CHF were compared with 9 stable coronary patients with minimal LV dysfunction (control group). Using first-pass radionuclide ventriculography, changes in LV function were assessed during work versus recovery phases, at temporally matched times between the fifth and sixteenth minute of IET and SSET. In CHF during IET, there were no significant variations in the parameters measured during work and/or recovery phases. During the course of both IET and SSET, there was a significant increase in LV ejection fraction (5 vs 4 U; p <0.05 each), accompanied by increased heart rate (6 vs 8 beats/min; p <0.05 each) and cardiac output (2.4 vs 1.8 L/min; p <0.01 and p <0.05). In CHF, the magnitude of change in LV ejection fraction during IET was similar to that seen in controls. Both LV ejection fraction and the clinical status in patients with CHF remained stable during IET. Because IET appears to be as safe as SSET with respect to LV function, IET can be recommended for exercise training in CHF to apply higher peripheral exercise stimuli and with no greater LV stress than during SSET.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

K Meyer, C Foster, N Georgakopoulos, R Hajric, S Westbrook, A Ellestad, K Tilman, D Fitzgerald, H Young, H Weinstein, H Roskamm. 1998-12-01. Comparison of left ventricular function during interval versus steady-state exercise training in patients with chronic congestive heart failure.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9149(98)00646-8

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Aquatic physical therapy for hip and knee osteoarthritis: results of a single-blind randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Aquatic physical therapy is frequently used in the management of patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), yet there is little research establishing its efficacy for this population. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of aquatic physical therapy on hip or knee OA. SUBJECTS: A total of 71 volunteers with symptomatic hip OA or knee OA participated in this study. METHODS: The study was designed as a randomized controlled trial in which participants randomly received 6 weeks of aquatic physical therapy or no aquatic physical therapy. Outcome measures included pain, physical function, physical activity levels, quality of life, and muscle strength. RESULTS: The intervention resulted in less pain and joint stiffness and greater physical function, quality of life, and hip muscle strength. Totals of 72% and 75% of participants reported improvements in pain and function, respectively, compared with only 17% (each) of control participants. Benefits were maintained 6 weeks after the completion of physical therapy, with 84% of participants continuing independently. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Compared with no intervention, a 6-week program of aquatic physical therapy resulted in significantly less pain and improved physical function, strength, and quality of life. It is unclear whether the benefits were attributable to intervention effects or a placebo response.

Exercise Therapy↗