| Literature DB >> 24259818 |
Younghwa Lee1, Jaehong Lee, Hyunkyu Seo, Kyoung Kim, Dongki Min, Jinhwan Lee, Jeonghee Choi.
Abstract
[Purpose] While recent studies have reported that cardiac rehabilitation is an effective treatment, there have been few studies of its effects in rehabilitation for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify the effects of a home-based exercise training using a wireless electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring device on ACS patients. [Subjects] Fifty ACS patients were randomly divided into a experimental group of 25 patients and a control group of 25 patients. [Methods] The experimental group received education on the training before discharge from hospital and started home-based exercise training two weeks after discharge from hospital. The control group received conventional treatments. The left ventricular function was measured in both groups before the intervention at and 12 weeks, at the end of the intervention.Entities:
Keywords: Acute coronary syndrome (ACS); Home-based exercise; Ventricular function
Year: 2013 PMID: 24259818 PMCID: PMC3804989 DOI: 10.1589/jpts.25.631
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Phys Ther Sci ISSN: 0915-5287
Clinical characteristics of the subjects
| Variables | Experimental group (n = 25) | Control group (n = 25) |
| Male (%) | 18 (72%) | 19 (76%) |
| Age (yr) | 55.56 ± 9.23 | 57.88 ± 7.90 |
| Height (cm) | 166.92 ± 6.66 | 166.68 ± 8.37 |
| Weight (kg) | 66.08 ± 10.79 | 69.60 ± 13.34 |
| Previous history | ||
| Smoking (%) | 12 (48%) | 14 (56%) |
| Hypertension (%) | 7 (28%) | 10 (40%) |
| Diabetes (%) | 4 (16%) | 7 (28%) |
| Hyperlipidemia (%) | 4 (16%) | 4 (16%) |
| Medications | ||
| ARB (%) | 6 (24%) | 6 (24%) |
| ACEi (%) | 15 (60%) | 14 (56%) |
| CCB (%) | 2 (8%) | 3 (12%) |
| Statin (%) | 14 (56%) | 14 (56%) |
| Beta-blockers (%) | 21 (84%) | 23 (92%) |
Mean ± SD, ARB: angiotensin receptor blocker; ACEi: angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors; CCB: calcium channel blocker
Echocardiography data of the experimental and control groups
| Variables | Experimental group (n = 25) | Control group (n = 25) | ||
| Baseline | After 12 wk | Baseline | After 12 wk | |
| LVDd (cm) | 5.05 ± 0.38 | 4.90 ± 0.81 | 5.06 ± 0.62 | 5.15 ± 0.45 |
| LVDs (cm) | 3.51 ± 0.43 | 3.56 ± 0.69 | 3.50 ± 0.68 | 3.45 ± 0.73 |
| LVEF (%) | 52.48 ± 9.40 | 62.04 ± 9.42* | 52.12 ± 8.32 | 58.64 ± 9.34* |
| RWMA score** | 1.32 ± 0.39 | 1.08 ± 0.17* | 1.37 ± 0.36 | 1.29 ± 0.32* |
Mean ± SD, * p < 0.05: comparison between baseline and 12 wk follow-up, ** p < 0.05: significant difference, experimental group versus control group, LVDd: left ventricular end-diastolic dimension; LVDs: left ventricular end-systolic dimension; LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction; RWMA: regional wall motion abnormality