Daniel Niederer1, Lutz Vogt2, Javier Gonzalez-Rivera2, Katharina Schmidt2, Winfried Banzer2. 1. Department of Sports Medicine Sportmedizin, Goethe University Frankfurt/M, Ginnheimer Landstraße 39, 60487, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. niederer@sport.uni-frankfurt.de. 2. Department of Sports Medicine Sportmedizin, Goethe University Frankfurt/M, Ginnheimer Landstraße 39, 60487, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Whilst evidence supports beneficial effects of exercise on heart rate variability in cancer patients, its impact on heart rate recovery (HRR) and possible associations of exercise capacity and HRR have not yet been investigated. We aimed to evaluate the effects of an exercise intervention on HRR in relation to the baseline aerobic capacity. METHODS: Cancer patients (n = 309, 178 females) performed a cardiopulmonary exercise test at baseline and at a 4-month interval follow-up with home-based and supervised exercise programs in-between. VO2 and heart rate were assessed during and HRR at 60 and 120 s after test termination. Based on a median split of the VO2 peak baseline values, participants were dichotomized into two groups: below median (47 female; 57.5 ± 10 years) and above median (48 female; 54.3 ± 12 years). RESULTS: In the baseline sample (n = 309), VO2 peak correlated significantly with HRR60 (r = .327, p < .01) and HRR120 (r = .524, p < .01). For the compliers who completed intervention and assessments (n = 158), group comparisons demonstrated differences between below median versus above median group in absolute changes of HRR60 (3.1 ± 10.5 bpm (95% CI +0.6; +5.4) vs -1.8 ± 8.7 bpm (95% CI -3.7; +0.5)) and VO2 peak (2.9 ± 3.5 ml/kg/min (95% CI +2.1; +3.7) vs 0.66 ± 4 ml/kg/min (95% CI -0.6; +1.5)) (p < .01), but not in HRR120 (3.9 ± 11.8 bpm (95% CI +1.2; +6.6) vs 0.8 ± 10.8 bpm (95% CI -1.7; +3.5); p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings point toward a positive linear relationship between aerobic capacity and vagal reactivation in cancer patients. Patients with initial VO2 peak values below median showed improved VO2 peak, HRR60 and HRR120 following the moderate aerobic exercise intervention and differences to patients above median in all outcomes compared.
PURPOSE: Whilst evidence supports beneficial effects of exercise on heart rate variability in cancerpatients, its impact on heart rate recovery (HRR) and possible associations of exercise capacity and HRR have not yet been investigated. We aimed to evaluate the effects of an exercise intervention on HRR in relation to the baseline aerobic capacity. METHODS:Cancerpatients (n = 309, 178 females) performed a cardiopulmonary exercise test at baseline and at a 4-month interval follow-up with home-based and supervised exercise programs in-between. VO2 and heart rate were assessed during and HRR at 60 and 120 s after test termination. Based on a median split of the VO2 peak baseline values, participants were dichotomized into two groups: below median (47 female; 57.5 ± 10 years) and above median (48 female; 54.3 ± 12 years). RESULTS: In the baseline sample (n = 309), VO2 peak correlated significantly with HRR60 (r = .327, p < .01) and HRR120 (r = .524, p < .01). For the compliers who completed intervention and assessments (n = 158), group comparisons demonstrated differences between below median versus above median group in absolute changes of HRR60 (3.1 ± 10.5 bpm (95% CI +0.6; +5.4) vs -1.8 ± 8.7 bpm (95% CI -3.7; +0.5)) and VO2 peak (2.9 ± 3.5 ml/kg/min (95% CI +2.1; +3.7) vs 0.66 ± 4 ml/kg/min (95% CI -0.6; +1.5)) (p < .01), but not in HRR120 (3.9 ± 11.8 bpm (95% CI +1.2; +6.6) vs 0.8 ± 10.8 bpm (95% CI -1.7; +3.5); p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings point toward a positive linear relationship between aerobic capacity and vagal reactivation in cancerpatients. Patients with initial VO2 peak values below median showed improved VO2 peak, HRR60 and HRR120 following the moderate aerobic exercise intervention and differences to patients above median in all outcomes compared.
Authors: Shiraz I Mishra; Roberta W Scherer; Claire Snyder; Paula M Geigle; Debra R Berlanstein; Ozlem Topaloglu Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2012-08-15
Authors: J Wiskemann; R Kuehl; P Dreger; R Schwerdtfeger; G Huber; C M Ulrich; D Jaeger; M Bohus Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2013-12-09 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: Fernando Ribeiro; Alberto Jorge Alves; Madalena Teixeira; Fátima Miranda; Cristina Azevedo; José Alberto Duarte; José Oliveira Journal: Rev Port Cardiol Date: 2012-01-04 Impact factor: 1.374
Authors: K Imai; H Sato; M Hori; H Kusuoka; H Ozaki; H Yokoyama; H Takeda; M Inoue; T Kamada Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1994-11-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Daniel Y T Fong; Judy W C Ho; Bryant P H Hui; Antoinette M Lee; Duncan J Macfarlane; Sharron S K Leung; Ester Cerin; Wynnie Y Y Chan; Ivy P F Leung; Sharon H S Lam; Aliki J Taylor; Kar-keung Cheng Journal: BMJ Date: 2012-01-30
Authors: Lindsey Christoffersen; Todd M Gibson; Ching-Hon Pui; Vijaya Joshi; Robyn E Partin; Daniel M Green; Jennifer Q Lanctot; Carrie R Howell; Daniel A Mulrooney; Gregory T Armstrong; Leslie L Robison; Melissa M Hudson; Kirsten K Ness Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 3.167