| Literature DB >> 26445331 |
M Marcondes-Santos1, A P Mansur2, F S Fragata1, C M C Strunz2.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the effects of carvedilol treatment and a regimen of supervised aerobic exercise training on quality of life and other clinical, echocardiographic, and biochemical variables in a group of client-owned dogs with chronic mitral valve disease (CMVD). Ten healthy dogs (control) and 36 CMVD dogs were studied, with the latter group divided into 3 subgroups. In addition to conventional treatment (benazepril, 0.3-0.5 mg/kg once a day, and digoxin, 0.0055 mg/kg twice daily), 13 dogs received exercise training (subgroup I; 10.3 ± 2.1 years), 10 dogs received carvedilol (0.3 mg/kg twice daily) and exercise training (subgroup II; 10.8 ± 1.7 years), and 13 dogs received only carvedilol (subgroup III; 10.9 ± 2.1 years). All drugs were administered orally. Clinical, laboratory, and Doppler echocardiographic variables were evaluated at baseline and after 3 and 6 months. Exercise training was conducted from months 3-6. The mean speed rate during training increased for both subgroups I and II (ANOVA, P>0.001), indicating improvement in physical conditioning at the end of the exercise period. Quality of life and functional class was improved for all subgroups at the end of the study. The N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level increased in subgroup I from baseline to 3 months, but remained stable after training introduction (from 3 to 6 months). For subgroups II and III, NT-proBNP levels remained stable during the entire study. No difference was observed for the other variables between the three evaluation periods. The combination of carvedilol or exercise training with conventional treatment in CMVD dogs led to improvements in quality of life and functional class. Therefore, light walking in CMVD dogs must be encouraged.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26445331 PMCID: PMC4617114 DOI: 10.1590/1414-431X20154568
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Braz J Med Biol Res ISSN: 0100-879X Impact factor: 2.590
Figure 1Study design. CT: conventional treatment; ET: exercise training.
Figure 2Training heart rate (THR; bpm) calculated at the three evaluated time points of the supervised physical exercise regimen. Subgroup I (A) showed no difference between the evaluation periods. Subgroup II (B) showed different progressions during the training period according to ANOVA. T1: 3 months after study initiation, T2: 6 months after study initiation. *P=0.009, THR at T1 compared with THR at 45-days for subgroup II (ANOVA); *P=0.025, THR at T1 compared with THR at T2 for subgroup II (ANOVA).
Figure 3Mean speed rate (MSR) training progressions (km/h) for subgroups I and II during the study period. T1: 3 months after study initiation, T2: 6 months after study initiation. *P=0.001, T1 compared to 45-days; 45-days compared o T2; T1 compared to T2 for the two subgroups (ANOVA).