| Literature DB >> 34205551 |
Giulia Foccardi1,2, Marco Vecchiato1,2, Daniel Neunhaeuserer1,2, Michele Mezzaro1, Giulia Quinto1,2, Francesca Battista1,2, Federica Duregon1, Roberto Carlon3, Andrea Ermolao1,2.
Abstract
Although the efficacy of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is proven, the need to improve patients' adherence has emerged. There are only a few studies that have investigated the effect of sending text messages after a CR period to stimulate subjects' ongoing engagement in regular physical activity (PA). A randomized controlled pilot trial was conducted after CR, sending a daily PA text message reminder to an intervention group (IG), which was compared with a usual care control group (CG) during three months of follow-up. Thirty-two subjects were assessed pre- and post-study intervention with GPAQ, submaximal iso-watt exercise testing, a 30 s sit-to-stand test, a bilateral arm curl test, and a final survey on a seven-point Likert scale. A statistically significant difference in the increase of moderate PA time (Δ 244.7 (95% CI 189.1, 300.4) minutes, p < 0.001) and in the reduction of sedentary behavior time (Δ -77.5 (95% CI 104.9, -50.1) minutes, p = 0.004) was shown when the IG was compared with the CG. This was associated with an improvement in heart rate, blood pressure, and patients' Borg rating on the category ratio scale 10 (CR10) in iso-watt exercise testing (all p < 0.05). Furthermore, only the IG did not show a worsening of the strength parameters in the follow-up leading to a change of the 30 s sit-to-stand test with a difference of +2.2 (95% CI 1.23, 3.17) repetitions compared to CG (p = 0.03). The telemedical intervention has been appreciated by the IG, whose willingness to continue with regular PA emerged to be superior compared to the CG. Text messages are an effective and inexpensive adjuvant after phase 2 CR that improves adherence to regular PA. Further studies are needed to confirm these results in a larger patient population and in the long term.Entities:
Keywords: GPAQ; coronary heart disease; exercise testing; exercise training; ischemic cardiomyopathy; strength testing
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34205551 PMCID: PMC8296387 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18126645
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1PRISMA flow diagram.
Baseline characteristics of the study population.
| Control Group ( | Intervention Group ( | |
|---|---|---|
| Age (DS) | 61.1 (10.6) | 61.4 (8.9) |
| Men (%) | 13 (81.3) | 14 (87.5) |
| BMI (DS) | 27.0 (2.9) | 26.6 (3.2) |
| Cardiac pathology | ||
| HFrEF | 1 (6.3) | 1 (6.3) |
| STEMI | 5 (31.3) | 5 (31.3) |
| NSTEMI | 3 (18.8) | 2 (12.5) |
| Type of intervention | ||
| PTCA | 12 (75.0) | 12 (75.0) |
| CABG | 4 (25.0) | 4 (25.0) |
| Comorbidities | ||
| Dyslipidemia | 12 (75.0) | 11 (68.8) |
| Arterial hypertension | 10 (62.5) | 9 (56.3) |
| Chronic kidney disease | 1 (6.3) | 3 (18.8) |
| Impaired fasting glucose | 4 (25.0) | 4 (25.0) |
| Type 2 diabetes mellitus | 2 (12.5) | 3 (18.8) |
Baseline characteristics of the study population. No significant difference exists between the two groups. HFrEF: heart failure with reduced ejection fraction; STEMI: ST segment elevation myocardial infarction; NSTEMI: non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction; PTCA: percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty; CABG: coronary artery bypass graft. Data are presented as mean (±standard deviation) or as number (%).
Patients’ physical activity level.
| Control Group (CG) | Intervention Group (IG) | Δ between Groups | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Three Months | Baseline | Three Months | Δ IG (3 Months—Baseline)–Δ CG (3 Months—Baseline) | |
| Travel to and from places | 43.8 (89.6) | 43.4 (68.2) | 134.6 (319.0) | 150.0 (316.0) * | 15.3 (−13.7, 44.3) |
| Moderate recreational activity | 150.0 (98.4) | 166.9 (158.5) | 119.4 (111.4) | 380.9 (167.4) *** | 244.7 (189.1, 300.4) *** |
| Sedentary behavior | 251.3 (88.5) | 294.4 (44.1) * | 255.0 (91.7) | 220.6 (89.5) | −77.5 (−104.9, −50.1) ** |
GPAQ questionnaire results at baseline and at three-month follow-up in both study groups. Data are presented as mean (±standard deviation), except for the column of “Δ between groups”, where data are presented as mean (95% confidence interval). Asterisks identify the presence of a statistically significant difference between three-month follow-up and basal conditions. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2Patients’ modifications in physical activity after cardiac rehabilitation. Variations in physical activity levels evaluated with GPAQ in the intervention group (IG) and the control group (CG). The differences between the three-month follow-up and the baseline assessments are shown for both study groups. Furthermore, a comparison between the two groups is illustrated (Δ IG-CG).
Patients’ performance at submaximal exercise testing.
| Control Group (CG) | Intervention Group (IG) | Δ between Groups | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Three Months | Baseline | Three Months | Δ IG (3 Months—Baseline)–CG (3 Months—Baseline) | |
| Resting HR (bpm) | 62.7 (6.4) | 63.1 (6.3) | 63.9 (4.2) | 62.6 (5.2) | −1.7 (−3.9, −0.3) |
| Resting SBP | 120.6 (12.6) | 121.1 (13.3) | 122.1 (7.4) | 120.5 (8.9) | −2.1 (−4.6, 0.4) |
| Resting DBP | 72.0 (7.9) | 73.1 (6.8) | 74.4 (7.7) | 74.1 (8.0) | −0.6 (−1.5, 0.3) |
| Exercise HR (bpm) | 87.5 (8.9) | 91.8 (9.6) * | 90.7 (8.7) | 88.5 (9.8) * | −6.6 (−9.5, −3.7) ** |
| Exercise SBP (mmHg) | 148.3 (17.5) | 153.1 (19.5) * | 149.2 (15.4) | 144.4 (16.8) * | −9.6 (−12.5, −6.7) ** |
| Exercise DBP | 76.3 (9.0) | 80.3 (10.2) * | 77.2 (8.0) | 76.3 (7.2) | −5.0 (−7.1, −2.9) * |
| CR10 | 3.9 (0.9) | 4.6 (1.5) * | 4.1 (1.3) | 3.6 (1.7) * | −1.2 (−1.7, −0.8) ** |
Resting cardiovascular data and response to exercise evaluated during a submaximal iso-watt exercise test before and after a three-month follow-up period post CR. HR: heart rate SBP: systolic blood pressure; DBP: diastolic blood pressure; CR10: patients’ Borg rating on the category ratio scale 10. Data are presented as mean (±standard deviation), except for the column of “Δ between groups”, where data are presented as mean (95% confidence interval). Asterisks identify the presence of a statistically significant difference between three-month follow-up and basal conditions within each group or between the two groups. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Patients’ performance at strength testing.
| Control Group (CG) | Intervention Group (IG) | Δ between Groups | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Three Months | Baseline | Three Months | Δ IG (3 Months—Baseline)–Δ CG (3 Months—Baseline) | |
| 30 s chair sit-to-stand test | 14.1 (3.4) | 12.3 (3.2) ** | 15.6 (3.8) | 16.0 (4.7) | 2.2 (1.23, 3.17) * |
| Right arm curl test | 14.7 (3.8) | 12.8 (4.6) * | 15.8 (4.2) | 14.0 (3.9) * | 0.1 (−0.59, 0.79) |
| Left arm curl test | 13.8 (3.9) | 12.0 (4.6) ** | 14.3 (3.0) | 12.6 (3.4) ** | 0.0 (−0.52, 0.52) |
Strength test results at baseline and at three-month follow-up in both study groups. Reps: repetitions. Data are presented as mean (±standard deviation), except for the column “Δ between groups”, where data are presented as mean (95% confidence interval). Asterisks identify the presence of a statistically significant difference between three-month follow-up and basal conditions or between the two study groups. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.