G Valentino1,2, J E Galgani2,3, M Álamos2, L Orellana1, M Adasme1, A Berríos1, M Acevedo1. 1. División de Enfermedades Cardiovasculares, Escuela de Medicina, Facultad de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile. 2. Carrera de Nutrición y Dietética, Departamento de Ciencias de la Salud, Facultad de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile. 3. Departamento de Nutrición, Diabetes y Metabolismo, Facultad de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whether a patient's outcomes are better when receiving nutritional counselling during cardiac rehabilitation (CR) has been scarcely described. We compared changes in weight, waist circumference (WC) and blood pressure (BP) in patients attending CR with and without nutritional counselling. METHODS: A retrospective analytical study was conducted in which two groups of patients who completed a phase II CR (36 sessions) were compared: CONTROL [n = 144, mean (SD) age = 59 (12) years, 17% females], comprising patients without nutritional counselling (attended between 2003 and 2009), and NUT [n = 128, mean (SD) age = 60 (13) years, 27% females], comprising patients with dietitian-delivered nutritional counselling (attended between 2010 and 2019). Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare changes in weight, WC, and BP during CR between groups. Logistic regression models determined the probability of reducing weight and systolic BP (SBP). RESULTS: NUT group decreased weight [-1.3 (3.1) kg; P < 0.0001] and WC [-3.0 (3.8) cm; P < 0.0001] to a greater extent than CONTROL [weight: -0.4 (3.1) kg; P = 0.51; WC: -1.4 (4.5) cm; P = 0.02]. In CONTROL, 7% reduced ≥ 5% weight and 31% reduced ≥ 10 mmHg SBP, whereas, in the NUT group, 18% reduced ≥ 5% weight and 47% reduced ≥ 10 mmHg SBP. Patients in NUT (versus CONTROL) were more likely to lose ≥ 5% of weight (odds ratio = 4.27, 95% confidence interval = 1.69-10.80; P < 0.01) and reduce SBP ≥ 10 mmHg (odds ratio = 3.15, 95% confidence interval = 1.58-6.27; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received nutritional counselling during CR improved anthropometric measures and were more likely to lose weight and reduce SBP than patients without nutritional counselling.
BACKGROUND: Whether a patient's outcomes are better when receiving nutritional counselling during cardiac rehabilitation (CR) has been scarcely described. We compared changes in weight, waist circumference (WC) and blood pressure (BP) in patients attending CR with and without nutritional counselling. METHODS: A retrospective analytical study was conducted in which two groups of patients who completed a phase II CR (36 sessions) were compared: CONTROL [n = 144, mean (SD) age = 59 (12) years, 17% females], comprising patients without nutritional counselling (attended between 2003 and 2009), and NUT [n = 128, mean (SD) age = 60 (13) years, 27% females], comprising patients with dietitian-delivered nutritional counselling (attended between 2010 and 2019). Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare changes in weight, WC, and BP during CR between groups. Logistic regression models determined the probability of reducing weight and systolic BP (SBP). RESULTS: NUT group decreased weight [-1.3 (3.1) kg; P < 0.0001] and WC [-3.0 (3.8) cm; P < 0.0001] to a greater extent than CONTROL [weight: -0.4 (3.1) kg; P = 0.51; WC: -1.4 (4.5) cm; P = 0.02]. In CONTROL, 7% reduced ≥ 5% weight and 31% reduced ≥ 10 mmHg SBP, whereas, in the NUT group, 18% reduced ≥ 5% weight and 47% reduced ≥ 10 mmHg SBP. Patients in NUT (versus CONTROL) were more likely to lose ≥ 5% of weight (odds ratio = 4.27, 95% confidence interval = 1.69-10.80; P < 0.01) and reduce SBP ≥ 10 mmHg (odds ratio = 3.15, 95% confidence interval = 1.58-6.27; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received nutritional counselling during CR improved anthropometric measures and were more likely to lose weight and reduce SBP than patients without nutritional counselling.
Authors: Jacek Hincz; Maciej Sterliński; Dariusz Kostrzewa; Rafał Dąbrowski; Edyta Smolis-Bąk Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-02 Impact factor: 4.614